Recent patent infringement cases filed in U.S. District Courts
Marshall Division, Eastern District of TexasThermal Scalpel LLC vs. Covidien Ltd. et al
Plaintiff Thermal Scalpel is a Texas limited liability company based in Frisco.
The plaintiff claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,726,683 issued April 27, 2004, for an Electronically Heated Surgical Cutting Instrument.
The suit alleges that defendants Covidien, Tyco Healthcare Group, Arthrocare Medical Corp., Boston Scientific, C.R. Bard, Medtronic, Smith & Nephew and St. Jude Medical infringe the '683 Patent by making, using or selling surgical devices that involve the cutting or ablation of tissue in a manner that promotes hemostatis.
"Thermal Scalpel has been damaged as a result of defendants' infringing conduct," the complaint states. "Defendants are this liable to Thermal Scalpel 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 as fixed by this court …"
The plaintiff is also seeking attorneys' fees and any other just and proper relief.
Edward Nelson III of Nelson Bumbardner Casto PC in Fort Worth is attorney in charge for the plaintiff. Eric Albritton and T. John Ward Jr. of Longview are also representing Thermal Scalpel.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.
Case No. 2:08-cv-312-DF
Versata Software Inc. vs. Internet Brands Inc.
Plaintiffs Versata Software Inc., formerly known as Trilogy Software Inc., and Versata Development Group Inc., formerly known as Trilogy Development Group Inc., have a principal place of business in Austin.
The suit was filed against defendants Internet Brands Inc., formerly known as Carsdirect.com Inc., Autodata Solutions Co. and Autodata Solutions Inc.
According to the original complaint, "this is not the first suit Versata has been forced to bring against defendants."
In December 1999, Versata filed suit against defendants for patent infringement regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,825,651 for a Method and Apparatus for Maintaining and Configuring Systems. The complaint states that suit was settled May 1, 2001.
"Versata has recently discovered that, contrary to the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, defendants have been making presentations to potential business targets regarding the terms of the Settlement Agreement," the complaint states. "In fact, defendants have been disclosing and misrepresenting the terms of the Settlement Agreement in attempting to win business in direct competition with Versata."
The plaintiff alleges that defendants have misrepresented that they have a complete license from Versata to use and sell their various technical solutions to customers.
"Such misrepresentations were made, at a minimum, to Chrysler during a sales pitch by defendants that ultimately had the effect of winning the Chrysler account from Versata," court documents say.
Defendants do not have a general license, Versata claims, but a license limited to specific terms provided in the settlement agreement.
"Defendants are well-aware of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, yet nonetheless are competing against Versata by misrepresenting the scope of their license in order to assuage concerns client may have that their technical solutions infringe Versata's intellectual property," the complaint states. "As a result, defendants were able to lure at least one client away from Versata and could steal more if this wrongdoing is allowed to continue."
The suit goes on to say that defendants know that Versata has a "large patent portfolio that extends far beyond the scope of patents licensed under the settlement agreement."
Two of those patents are at issue in this case: U.S. Patent No. 7,130,821 for a Method and Apparatus for Product Comparison, and U.S. Patent No. 7,206,756 for a System and Method for Facilitating Commercial Transactions Over a Data Network.
Versata alleges that the defendants are willfully infringing on the '821 and '756 patents.
The plaintiff also claims that the defendants have breached the settlement agreement and committed tortious interference with an existing contract and with prospective contractual relations.
The loss of the Chrysler contract, the plaintiff states, has deprived Versata of millions of dollars in revenues and profits. Defendants are also making false representations to other current and prospective Versata customers in the automotive industry, the suit claims.
Versata is seeking injunctive relief, damages and interest, treble damages, attorneys' fees, exemplary damages and other relief.
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 and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.
Case No. 2:08-cv-313-TJW-CE
Freescale Semiconductor Inc. vs. LSI Corp.
Plaintiff Freescale Semiconductor was formed in 2004 as a result of the divestiture of the semiconductor products sector of Motorola and maintains its principal place of business in Austin.
According to the complaint, defendant LSI manufactures or sells semiconductor devices that are sold under the brand names of other companies.
The suit relates to three patents that were originally owned by Motorola which now belong to Freescale. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,467,455; 5,776,798; and 6,473,349 B1. The suit does not give the titles of the patents.
Freescale alleges that LSI makes, uses and sells products that infringe the patents.
In addition, the plaintiff alleges that LSI has knowledge of the patents-in-suit, but has not ceased its infringing activities.
Freescale is seeking an injunction against LSI, actual damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief that the court deems just and equitable.
Samuel 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-314-TJW
Digital Security Systems Corp. LLC vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Austin-based Digital Security Systems claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,052,780 issued April 11, 2000, for a Computer System and Process for Accessing an Encrypted and Self-Encrypting Digital Information Product While Restricting Access to Decrypted Digital Information.
The plaintiff alleges that defendants Samsung, Best Buy, Denon, Funai, LG, Matsushita, Panasonic, Konin, Phillips, Pioneer and Sharp infringe the '780 Patent through the sale and distribution of various Blu-ray Disc players.
Digital Security Systems is asking that defendants account for and pay all damages resulting from their infringing activities. DSS is also seeking treble damages for willful infringement, interest, attorneys' fees and other relief.
T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview and attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Casto PC in Fort Worth 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-316-DF-CE
Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas
Catch Curve Inc. vs. MyVFM.com
Catch Curve Inc. vs. Popesco ITC Specialists
Plaintiff Catch Curve filed two different suits for patent infringement against two defendants.
In the suit against Pearland-based MyVFM.com Catch Curve alleges infringement of several of its patents for a Facsimile Telecommunications System and Method. The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 7,365,884
U.S. Patent No. 6,785,021
U.S. Patent No. 6,643,034
U.S. Patent No. 5,459,584
U.S. Patent No. 4,994,926
Catch Curve alleges that MyVFM.com infringes the patents-in-suit by making, using, selling or importing its FlatRateFax.com fax to email service.
The suit against French corporation Popesco ITC Specialists alleges that the '021 and '884 Patents have been infringed by the defendants PopFax service in the United States.
In both suits, Catch Curve claims it has suffered irreparable harm by the defendants' infringing activities and will continue to suffer unless the defendants are enjoined by the court.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.
Kurt Truelove of Texarkana is representing the plaintiff. Attorneys from Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley LLP in Atlanta, Ga., and Kenyon & Kenyon LLP in San Jose, Calif., are of counsel for the plaintiff.
The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Case No. 6:08-cv-318-LED (MyVFM.com)
Case No. 6:08-cv-319-LED (Popesco ITC Specialists)
Boston Scientific Corp. et al vs. Medtronic Inc. et al
Plaintiff Boston Scientific claims to own the rights to 10 United States patents relating to endovascular stent grafts.
According to the complaint, Medtronic sells a number of medical devices and services relating to abdominal aortic aneurysms under the trade names AneuRx, AAAdvantage and Talent.
Medtronic Inc., Medtronic USA Inc. and Medtronic Vascular Inc. have allegedly infringed the Boston Scientific Patents through the aforementioned products.
BSC is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief.
Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC in Tyler is representing the plaintiff. Attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York, N.Y., are of counsel.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Case No. 6:08-cv-320-LED