ChriMar Systems Inc. vs. Waters Network Systems LLC
Plaintiff ChriMar, doing business as CMS Technologies Inc., claims to be the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250 issued Nov. 25, 2008, for a System for Communication with Electronic Equipment.
"Defendant has infringed, is infringing and is threatening to infringe the '250 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling or importing into the United States devices embodying the patented system and by practicing the patented method …" the original complaint states.
CMS claims it has been seriously and irreparably damaged by defendant's conduct.
The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.
Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP in Marshall 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-453-TJW-CE
Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. vs. Intersil Corp.
Plaintiff TAOS was organized under the laws of Nevada and has its principal place of business in Plano, Texas and claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,596,981 issued July 22, 2003, for a Method and Apparatus for Optical Detector with Special Discrimination.
According the original complaint, TAOS invented, designed, developed and patented state-of-the-art technology to produce the first digital ambient light sensors that are used to automatically adjust the brightness of flat panel display screens.
The plaintiff alleges that under the auspices of evaluating the purchase of TAOS, and under obligations of confidentiality, Intersil conducted a complete detailed analysis of TAOS and its products in 2004.
"Prior to this …, Intersil did not have a product that competed directly against TAOS' light sensor," the petition states. "Now, Intersil markets a family of competitive light sensors. Indeed, of all the TAOS competitors that develop and sell ambient light sensors, it appears that Intersil's products are the only ones that use the same patented technology and method as that utilized in the TAOS light sensors."
TAOS is claiming not only patent infringement, but also breach of contract under California law, trade secret misappropriation under Texas law and tortious interference with prospective relations under Texas law.
The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief; compensatory, enhanced and exemplary damages; attorneys' fees and costs; pre- and post-judgment interest; and other relief to which it may be entitled.
Jamil N. Alibhai and other attorneys from Munck Carter PC in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell.
Case No. 4:08-cv-451-RAS
Scanbuy Inc. and Marshall Feature Recognition Inc. vs. Neomedia Technologies Inc.
According to the original complaint, plaintiff Scanbuy owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,287,696 B2 issued Oct. 30, 2007, for a System and Method for Decoding and Analyzing Barcodes Using a Mobile Device.
Plaintiff Marshall Feature Recognition Inc. claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,886,750 B2 issued May 3, 2005, for a Method and Apparatus for Accessing Electronic Data Via a Familiar Printed Medium.
By virtue of an exclusive license agreement, Scanbuy has all rights to sue for infringement of the '750 Patent for purposes of the complaint against defendant NeoMedia.
The complaint alleges that NeoMedia has infringed the '696 and/or the '750 Patent by making, using and selling the NeoReader code scanning software and NeoServer-OMS.
The suit also alleges infringement through NeoMedia's activities related to "Marketing: Real People, Real Choices," "Gulfshore Business Magazine" and a market test involving Papa John's International Inc.
"Scanbuy has been damaged by NeoMedia's infringement and unless NeoMedia obtains a license to the patents from Scanbuy or is enjoined by this court, NeoMedia will continue its infringing activities and Scanbuy will continue to be damaged," the complaint states.
The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest and other just and proper relief.
John Mercy of Mercy Carter Tidwell LLP in Texarkana is representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.
Case No. 5:08-cv-199-DF
Dura Operating Corp. vs. Magna International Inc. et al
Plaintiff Dura claims it is the owner of four patents dealing with sliding rear window assemblies:
U.S. Patent No. 5,522,191 was issued June 4, 1996, for a Multi-Pane Window Assembly with Single-Sided Frame.
U.S. Patent No. 5,799,449 was issued Sept. 1, 1998, for a Snap-Fit Sliding Window Assembly.
U.S. Patent No. 5,442,880 was issued Aug. 22, 1995, for a Window Assembly with Slider.
U.S. Patent No. 5,551,193 was issued Sept. 3, 1996, for a Window Assembly Blade Seal.
According to the complaint, Magna International Inc., Magna Mirrors of America Inc. doing business as Magna Donnelly, Decoma International Corp. and Decoma International of America Inc. are infringing the '191, '449 and '880 Patents. The defendants are known collectively as the Decoma defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that Decoma has infringed and continues to infringe the patents with knowledge and/or reckless disregard of the patents, contributes to the infringement of the patents by others, induces the infringement of the patents by its customers. The suit also alleges the infringement has been willful, wanton and deliberate.
Dura is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and other equitable relief.
Otis Carroll of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler is representing the plaintiff, with attorneys from the Boston and Washington, D.C., offices of Banner & Witcoff Ltd. and Dean Watson of Dura Operating Corp. in Rochester Hills, Mich., of counsel.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.