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

Marilyn Tennissen Nov. 25, 2008, 12:34pm

Marshall Division

Nov. 19

  • Better Education Inc. vs. eInstruction Corp. et al

    Plaintiff Better Education claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,002,491 issued March 26, 1991, for an Electronic Classroom System Enabling Interactive Self-Paced Learning.

    The complaint states that the '491 Patent, in general, "relates to interactive electronic classroom systems that enable teachers to teach students concepts and receive feedback regarding how well the students have learned the concepts."

    Better Education alleges that eInstruction Corp., Smart Technologies Corp., Promethean Inc. and QWizdom Inc. are infringing the '491 Patent. Defendants' infringing products include the Classroom Performance System-RF, Senteo Interactive Response Systems, Activote and Activexpression Systems and QWizdom Interactive System.

    The plaintiff is asking that defendants account for and pay all damages and costs caused by the infringements. Better Education is also seeking interest, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.

    Edward Goldstein of Goldstein, Faucett & Prebeg LLP in Houston is representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-446-TJW-CE

  • LML Patent Corp. vs. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al

    Plaintiff LML is a subsidiary of LML Payment Corp., which is a "leading provider of electronic payment and risk management and authentication services," the original complaint states.

    LML claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. RE 40,220 for a Check Writing Point of Sale System.

    In the complaint, LML alleges that 19 banking and financial institutions are infringing the '220 Patent. Defendants named in the suit include JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, Citigroup, HSBC, Capital One, Citizens, Deutsche Bank and PayPal.

    LML is seeking actual and enhanced damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP in Marshall is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-448-DF

    Nov. 25

  • ChriMar Systems Inc. vs. Waters Network Systems LLC

    Plaintiff ChriMar Systems, doing business as CMS Technologies Inc. claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250. The '250 Patent was issued Nov. 25 for a System for Communications with Electronic Equipment.

    CMS claims Waters Network Systems is infringing the '250 Patent and is inducing others to infringe the patent.

    "As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff has been seriously and irreparably damaged," the complaint states.

    CMS is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory and treble damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.

    Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP in Marshall is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

    Court assignment is pending.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-453

    Tyler Division

    Nov. 19

  • Aloft Media LLC vs. Google Inc.

    Plaintiff Aloft Media is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview.

    Aloft claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,194,691 issued March 20, 2007, for a Network Browser Window with Adjacent Identifier Selector Interface for Storing Web Content.

    "On information and belief, Google has been and is now directly infringing and/or inducing infringement by others of the '691 Patent …" the complaint states.

    Google's infringement includes the production, use and sales of computer software products including Google Chrome Browser, the plaintiff alleges.

    Aloft is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, costs, expenses, interest and other relief to which it may be entitled.

    Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm in Longview, Thomas John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview and Danny Williams of Williams, Morgan & Amerson PC in Houston are representing Aloft Media.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 6:08-cv-440-LED

    Nov. 24

  • Cedric R. Emanuel vs. Tiger Tool International Inc.

    Texas resident Cedric R. Emanuel, doing business as Just Wheels, claims to be the inventor and owner of a patent covering a method for replacing wheel studs and another patent for the tool used to install the wheel stud.

    The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 6,505,390 issued Jan. 14, 2003, and U.S. Patent No. 6,618,920 issued Sept. 16, 2003.

    According to the complaint, Just Wheels is a wheel and stud replacement and tire repair service which offers for sale an automotive tool called the Heavy Duty Stud Press which is used for the removal and/or installation of wheel studs.

    The plaintiff also markets the Stud Press and offers it for sale through its Web site,

    Defendant Tiger Tool International is a Canadian corporation based in Abbortsford, British Columbia.

    "Upon information and belief, defendant is in the business of making, distributing, offering for sale and selling, through its Web site,, and indirectly through other wholesalers and automotive tools and equipment retailers, various types of truck and automotive specialty tools which it imports into the United States and within this district," the complaint states.

    According the suit, Emanuel disclosed his invention to Tiger Tool in April 2001, to inquire if the two could make and sell the Stud Press together.

    "Defendant responded to plaintiff's inquiry by stating the Stud Press was a good idea, but that it already had a device that worked on the same principle, but which was hydraulic," the complaint states.

    Emanuel claims that Tiger Tool then visited the plaintiff's Web site and began to ask questions about the Stud Press. Emanuel says he responded through his attorney and informed Tiger Tool that a patent on the Stud Press was filed and pending.

    "Defendant, however, rejected any cooperative venture with plaintiff," the suit states.

    The plaintiff claims Tiger Tool then made modifications to its own stud removal tool to incorporate design features of the Stud Press.

    Emanuel then claims he notified Tiger Tool when the patents were issued and offered Tiger Tool a license agreement but the defendant again rejected a cooperative venture.

    The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.

    Dariush Keyhani of Meredith & Keyhani in New York, N.Y., is lead attorney for the plaintiff. Andy Tindel of Provost Umphrey's Tyler office is also representing Emanuel.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 6:08-cv-453-LED

  • More News