Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Marilyn Tennissen Dec. 9, 2009, 7:00pm

Marshall Division

Dec. 3

  • Spa Syspatronic AG vs. Ingenico Inc.

    Plaintiff Spa Syspatronic, a Swiss corporation, claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 5,093,862 issued July 18, 1989, for a Data Carrier-Controlled Terminal in a Data Exchange System.

    The plaintiff alleges Georgia-based Ingenico manufactures, sells and offers to sell credit card payment modules and terminals that infringe the '862 Patent.

    The infringing products include eN Touch 1000 and the i6550, the i6580, the i6770, and the i6780 product families including the contactless expansion module.

    Syspatronic claims it has suffered and will continue to suffer injury to its business and property rights for which it is entitled to damages in an amount to be proved at trial.

    The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is demanded.

    Michael Hartmann of Leydig, Voit & Mayer Ltd. in Chicago is lead counsel for the plaintiff. Otis Carroll and Collin Maloney of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler are of counsel.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham for pretrial proceedings.

    Case No. 2:09-cv-373-TJW-CE

    Dec. 4

  • MedIdea LLC vs. Smith & Nephew Inc.

    Plaintiff MedIdea is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview.

    Smith & Nephew is engaged in the business of selling prostheses used by orthopedic surgeons from which it generates substantial revenue.

    MedIdea claims to own the rights to nine patents that are the subject of this suit.

    The patents-in-suit are:

    U.S. Patent No. 5,716,361
    U.S. Patent No. 5,885,296
    U.S. Patent No. 5,897,559
    U.S. Patent No. 5,944,722
    U.S. Patent No. 5,957,926
    U.S. Patent No. 6,077,269
    U.S. Patent No. 6,102,916
    U.S. Patent No. 6,500,179
    U.S. Patent No. 6,503,254

    According to the complaint, the '361 Patent, '296 Patent, '559 Patent, '722 Patent, '926 Patent, '269 Patent, '916 Patent, '179 Patent and the '254 Patent (collectively "the Knee Patents") are the result of pioneering research and development conducted in the field, among other areas, the proper preparation of knee prosthesis.

    The inventions disclosed by the Knee Patents have been incorporated by defendant Smith & Nephew into its product lines, such as, for example, in its Profix Total Knee System.

    "Smith has been infringing the Knee Patents by selling prosthesis' with structures that are covered by and claimed in the Knee Patents in violation of35 U.S.C. 271, with resultant damage to MedIdea," the complaint states.

    "Smith, with actual knowledge of the Knee Patents, with knowledge of their infringement and without lawful justification, has willfully and deliberately infringed the Knee Patents."

    MedIdea is also the owner of United States Patent Number 7,229,478.

    According to the complaint, the' 478 Patent ("the Shoulder Patent") is the result of pioneering research and development conducted in the field, among other areas, of the proper position of a prosthetic shoulder implant.

    The inventions disclosed by the Shoulder Patent have been incorporated by Smith into its product lines, such as, for example, in its NEER 3 Total Shoulder.

    The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, treble damages for willful and deliberate infringement and other relief as the court deems proper and just.

    A jury trial is demanded.

    S. Calvin Capshaw of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Longview is representing the plaintiff. Additional attorneys for the plaintiff are from Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC in Tyler; Vanek, Vickers & Masini PC and The Law Offices of Eugene M. Cummings PC in Chicago, Ill.

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

    Case No. 2:09-cv-378-TJW

  • Franklin Inventions LLC vs. Election Systems & Software Inc., et al

    The plaintiff Franklin Inventions claims to own the rights to several patents for Computer Enhanced Voting Systems Including Voter Verifiable, Custom Printed Ballots Imprinted to the Specifications of Each Voter.

    The patents-in-suit are:

    U.S. Patent No. 6,968,999 issued Nov. 29, 2005
    U.S. Patent No. 7,243,846 issued July 17, 2007
    U.S. Patent No. 7,575,164 issued Aug. 18, 2009

    The patents are for an electronic touch screen voting system which includes a printed verification of the voter's ballot and an opportunity to void selections.

    The plaintiff alleges that defendants Election Systems & Software Inc., Hart Intercivic Inc., Premier Election Solutions Inc. and Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. are infringing the patents-in-suit.

    The allegedly infringing products include ES&S iVotronic and iVotronic Real Time Audit Log, Hart e-Slate and Disabled Access Unit e-Slate and Verifiable Ballot Option, Premier AccuVote-TSX and AccuView Printer Module, Sequoia Edge2Plus and AVC Edge.

    Franklin Inventions is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, enhanced damages for willful infringement, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper.

    Edward W. Goldstein of Goldstein, Faucett & Prebeg LLP in Houston is attorney-in-charge for the plaintiff, along with attorneys from Gillam & Smith LLP in Marshall.

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

    Case No. 2:09-cv-377-TJW

    Tyler Division

    Dec. 7

    Nazomi Communications Inc. vs. Nokia Corp., et al

    According to the original complaint, plaintiff Nazomi Communications Inc. was founded September 1998 by three Java technology and embedded systems veterans for the purpose of enhancing the performance of applications that run on the Java platform and other universal runtime platforms.

    The suit states that Nazomi's pioneering technologies included the JSTAR Java Coprocessor technology and the JA108 Java and Multimedia Application Processor, which were targeted at wireless mobile devices, Internet appliances and embedded systems.

    "Java hardware acceleration has been widely adopted for wireless mobile and embedded systems applications," the suit states. "Java is now used as a platform on hundreds of millions of devices."

    The plaintiff claims to be the owner to all rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,080,362 issued July 18, 2006, for a Java Virtual Machine Hardware for RISC and CISC Processors.

    Java also claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,225,436 issued May 29, 2007, for a Java Hardware Accelerator Using Microcode Engine.

    Java alleges that defendants Nokia, Microsoft,, Western Digital, Garmin, Sling Media, Vizio and Iomega sell consumer electronics products containing processor cores capable of Java hardware acceleration which infringe the '362 and '436 Patents.

    Some of the allegedly infringing products include the Nokia 770 Internet Tablet, Microsoft Zune personal music player, Kindle 2 eReader, My Book World Edition network-attached storage device, Garmin Nuvi 205 personal navigation device, Slingbox Pro-HD remote personal video recorder, Vizio high definition televisions and Iomega Home Media Network Hard Drive network-attached storage device.

    The plaintiff claims defendants have willfully engaged in their infringing conduct.

    Java is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, costs, injunctive relief and other just and appropriate relief.

    A jury trial has been demanded.

    Trey Yarbrough of Yarbrough Wilcox PLLC in Tyler is representing the plaintiff. Attorneys from Cooley Godward Kronish LLP of Palo Alto, Calif., and Broomfield, Colo., are of counsel for the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 6:09-cv-542-LED

  • More News