Thirstystone Resources Inc. vs. Kirkland's Stores Inc.
Plaintiff Thirstystone is a Pennsylvania company with its principal place of business in Gainesville, Texas.
Thirstystone claims to be the owner of all rights to U.S. Design Patent No. D535,155 issued Jan. 16, 2007, for a Drink Coaster.
The plaintiff alleges Kirkland's home furnishings stores sell drink coasters that fall within the scope of the '155 Design Patent.
According to the complaint, on Sept. 22, Thirstystone provided written notice to Kirkland's of the store's infringement of the design patent.
"On information and belief, said infringement of Defendant Kirkland's continued following receipt of said written notice," the suit states.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, costs, interest, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and other proper and just relief.
Thirstystone is also demanding a trial by jury.
Mark J. Zimmerman of Dealey, Zimmermann, Clark, Malouf & MacFarlane PC in Dallas; and Stephen L. Levine of Anderson, Levine & Lintel LLP in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider.
Case No. 4:09-cv-522-MHS-ALM
Mesh Comm LLC vs. Landis+Gyr Inc. and Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC
Plaintiff Mesh Comm claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,379,981 issued May 27, 2008, for a Wireless Communication Enabled Meter and Network.
Mesh Comm alleges defendant Landis has infringed the '981 Patent by making, using or selling (directly or through intermediaries) wireless communication enabled meters and networks. In addition, the suit alleges Landis has contributed to the infringement of the '981 Patent and/or actively induced others to infringe the 981 Patent.
According to the complaint, Oncor has infringed one or more claims of the '981 Patent by making, using or selling (directly or through intermediaries) wireless enabled meters and networks, and has contributed to the infringement or actively induced others to infringe the '981 Patent.
"Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court," the complaint states.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief. The plaintiff is demanding a trial by jury.
Andrew Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview is representing Mesh Comm.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward.
Case No. 2:09-cv-328-TJW
T-Netix Inc. vs. Pinnacle Public Services LLC.
Plaintiff T-Netix is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Dallas.
Plaintiff T-NETIX makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell to the telecommunications industry specialized call-processing and billing equipment and services for correctional institutions, direct local and long-distance call processing for correctional facilities, value-added telecommunications services such as pre-connection restrictions, digital recording, jail and inmate management systems, video booking and other related goods and services, including commissary services.
T-Netix claims to own the rights to four patents for a Computer-Based Method and Apparatus for Controlling, Monitoring, Recording and Reporting Telephone Access
The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 6,560,323 issued May 6, 2003
U.S. Patent No. 5,655,013 issued Aug. 5, 1997
U.S. Patent No. 6,611,583 issued Aug. 26, 2003
U.S. Patent No. 7,248,680 issued July 24, 2007
According to the complaint, defendant Pinnacle makes, uses and sells specialized telephone call-processing and billing equipment or services for correctional institutions in competition with T-Netix.
"On information and belief, Defendant Pinnacle by making, using, selling, or offering to sell in the United States, without authority, products and services, including its The Intelmate System, has directly and indirectly infringed (by inducement) and is continuing to infringe, directly and indirectly, the '323 Patent, the '013 Patent, the '583 Patent, and the '680 Patent within the United States," the complaint states.
T-Netix is seeking compensatory damages, lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty. It is also asking the court for a permanent injunction, and seeking attorneys' fees, costs, interest and a trial by jury.
Anthony J. Magee of Gruber Hurst Johansen & Hail LLP in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham for pretrial proceedings.