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

Marilyn Tennissen Nov. 6, 2008, 3:58am

Marshall Division

Oct. 31

  • John B. Adrain vs. Genetec Inc. et al

    Plaintiff John Adrain is an individual residing in Spokane, Wash., who claims to be the inventor and owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,831,669. The '669 Patent was issued Nov. 3, 1998, for a Facility Monitoring System with Image Memory and Correlation.

    According to the complaint, defendants Genetec Inc., Pips Technology Inc., Elsag NA LLC, Platescan Inc. and the city of Plano, Texas, have each used infringing license plate recognition systems or devices.

    In addition, Adrain claims he previously notified the defendants about the '669 Patent.

    "Despite such notification, defendants … continued their infringement of the '669 Patent," the complaint states. "On information and belief, defendants infringement of the '669 Patent have therefore been with notice and knowledge of the patent and have been willful and deliberate."

    Adrain claims he has been irreparably damaged to an extent not yet determined by the infringement.

    The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, an accounting and payment of all damages caused by the infringement, treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    The plaintiff is represented by Elizabeth DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Longview and attorneys from Ireland, Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler; Jones & Jones PC in Marshall; and Polasek, Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire.

    The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-423-TJW-CE

    Nov. 3

  • Hart Intercivic Inc. vs. Avante International Technology Inc. et al

    Plaintiff Hart Intercivic is a Texas corporation based in Austin which makes electronic voting systems covered under U.S. Patent No. 6,688,517 issued Feb. 10, 2004.

    Hart Intercivic is one of three electronic voting systems approved for elections in Texas, along with Election Systems & Software (ES&S) and Premier Elections Software, formerly known as Diebold Election Systems. Jefferson County uses ES&S equipment and software to conduct its elections.

    Hart alleges that defendants Kevin Chung and Avante International Technology infringe on the '517 Patent through the Avante Optical Vote-Trakker system.

    The plaintiff also alleges that defendants' infringement has been willful and deliberate.

    "As a result of defendants' willful infringement of the '517 Patent, Hart is entitled to damages, including treble damages, no less than a reasonable royalty, and will continue to suffer such monetary damages in the future unless defendants' infringing activities are permanently enjoined by this court," the complaint states.

    Hart is also seeking costs, interest, attorneys' fees and other relief to which it may be entitled.

    David Henry of Patton Boggs LLP in Dallas is lead attorney for 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-426-TJW-CE

  • Applied Concepts Inc. vs. Kustom Signals Inc.

    Plaintiff Applied Concepts Inc., doing business as Stalker Radar, is a Texas corporation based in Plano. Stalker Radar claims to be the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,565,871 issued Oct. 15, 1996, for a Police Traffic Radar for Allowing Manual Rejection of Incorrect Patrol Speed Display.

    "Upon information and belief, Kustom has been and is now infringing, directly and indirectly by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the '871 Patent in this District, the state of Texas and elsewhere by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling police traffic radars that fall within the scope of at least one claim of the '871 Patent," the original complaint states.

    Stalker Radar claims it has no adequate remedy at law against Kustom's acts of infringement unless the company is enjoined by the court.

    The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest and other relief to which it may be entitled.

    Christopher Rourk of Jackson Walker LLP in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-428-TJW

    Nov. 4

  • Balthaser Online Inc. vs. Network Solutions, et al

    Plaintiff Balthaser Online Inc., a Delaware corporation based in California, states it is engaged in the business of creating interactive online productions for its clients.

    "Balthaser uses technology to allow its customers to design rich media Web site applications," the original complaint states. "Balthaser was founded in 1999 and has been in business continuously since."

    Balthaser claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,000,180 B2 issued Feb. 14, 2006, to inventor Neil Balthaser. The '180 Patent is for Methods, Systems and Processes for the Design and Creation of Rich-Media Applications via the Internet.

    The suit names 21 companies that Balthaser alleges infringe the '180 Patent by operating Web sites covered by one or claims of the patent.

    The defendants are Network Solutions, The Knot, Insider Guides, Cyworld, FriendFinder, HI5 Networks, FreeWebs, Gaia Interactive, Friendster, EBaum's World, Puma, Imeem, Scripps Networks, Live Journal Inc., Nike, Ning, Swatchbox Technologies, Electronic Arts, Hookumu Inc., Meredith Corp. and Capcom USA.

    In addition, Balthaser alleges the infringement of the '180 Patent by defendants has occurred with knowledge and has been reckless and willful.

    The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.

    Samuel Baxter of McKool Smith PC in Marshall and attorneys from Dickstein Shapiro LLP in New York, N.Y., are representing the plaintiff.

    Court assignment is pending.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-430

  • More News