Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Marilyn Tennissen Sep. 30, 2009, 12:38pm

Marshall Division

Sept. 23

  • Simple Air Inc. vs. AWS Convergence Technologies Inc. et al

    Plaintiff Simple Air, a Texas corporation, is suing 10 companies for patent infringement.

    The patents-in-suit are:

    -U.S. Patent No. 6,021,433 issued Feb. 1, 2000, for a System and Method for Transmission of Data;

    -U.S. Patent No. 7,035,914 issued April 25, 2006, for a System and Method for Transmission of Data;

    -U.S. Patent No. 6,735,614 issued Dec. 26, 2000, for Contact Alerts for Unconnected Users; and

    -U.S. Patent No. 6,167,426 issued May 11, 2004, for Contact Alerts for Unconnected Users.

    The plaintiff alleges that defendants are infringing the patents-in-suit by offering for sale products and services relating to the generation, processing and/or delivery of content, notifications and updates to or for mobile computing devices without a license or permission from plaintiff.

    The defendant companies are AWS Convergence Technologies, The Weather Channel Interactive, Apple Inc., Research In Motion, Facebook, ESPN, Disney Online, The Walt Disney Co., ABC, Handango and Handmark.

    All the defendants are accused of infringing the '433 and '914 Patents. Infringement of the '426 and '614 Patents is limited to defendants Apple, RIM and Facebook.

    SimpleAir claims it has been damaged by defendants' infringement and will suffer additional irreparable damage and impairment of the value of its patent rights unless defendants are enjoined from continuing to infringe, the suit states.

    The plaintiff is seeking a preliminary and permanently injunction against defendants, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and other relief as justice requires.

    S. Calvin Capshaw of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Longview is representing the plaintiff with attorneys from Dovel & Lunar LLP in Santa Monica, Calif.

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

    Case No. 2:09-cv-289-TJW

    Tyler Division

    Sept. 25

  • Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. vs Inc. et al

    Plaintiff Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., formerly known as Lucent Technologies Inc., includes a facility in Plano employing around 2,600 people.

    Alcatel-Lucent is suing for infringement of six patents:

    -U.S. Patent No. 5,649,131 issued July 15, 1997, for an invention called a Communications Protocol.

    -U.S. Patent No. 5,623,656 issued April 22, 1997, for a Script-Based Data Communication and Method Utilizing State Memory.

    -U.S. Patent No. 5,404,507 issued April 4, 1995, for an Apparatus and Method for Finding Records in a Database by Formulating a Query Using Equivalent Terms which Correspond to Terms in the Input Query.

    -U.S. Patent No. 5,350,303 issued Sept. 27, 1994, for a Method for Accessing Information in a Computer

    -U.S. Patent No. 5,509,074 issued April 16, 1996, for a Method of Protecting Electronically Published Materials Using Cryptographic Protocols

    -U.S. Patent No. 6,041,316 issued March 21, 2000, for a Method and System for Ensuring Royalty Payments for Data Delivered Over a Network

    The plaintiff alleges that,, Netflix,, QVC Inc., Sears, Kmart and Lands' End are infringing the patents-in-suit.

    Alcatel-Lucent is seeking a temporary and permanent injunction, compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

    The plaintiff also wants the court to issue an order requiring defendants to deliver for destruction or to destroy all infringing products in their possession. If the court does not grant a permanent injunction, then the plaintiff is seeking a royalty-bearing compulsory license or such relief as the court deems appropriate.

    Alcatel-Lucent is demanding a jury trial.

    Michael E. Jones of Potter Minton PC in Tyler is representing the plaintiff. Jan Conlin, Thomas Mahlum and Brian Mayer of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP in Minneapolis, Minn., are of counsel.

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

    Case No. 6:09-cv-422-LED

  • More News