MARSHALL DIVISION

Jan. 6

• Shin-Shuoh Lin vs Recreational Equipment Inc. Case No. 2:14-CV-0003

Plaintiff Shin-Shuoh Lin has a principal address in Laguna Hills, Calif. 

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,571,830 issued March 25, 2005, for a Beverage Shaker with Ice Strainer.

According to the suit, the ‘830 Patent discloses an insulated container, which is configured to hold the ingredients for protein supplement drinks. The insulated container permits manual mixing by shaking to and fro and retains any large pieces of the remaining ice within the container.

REI allegedly infringes the ‘830 Patent through the REI Vacuum Infuser Mug, and the plaintiff claims the infringement has been willful.

Shin-Shuoh Lin is seeking a permanent injunction against REI, damages, costs, expenses, interest, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is requested.

Winston O. Huff and Deborah Jagai of W.O. Huff & Associates PLLC in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.

 

Jan. 7

• Promethean Insulation Technology LLC vs Soprema Inc. (Canada), Soprema Inc. (United States) and Soprema USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00004

Plaintiff Promethean is a Texas limited liability company based in Plano.

The defendant is accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,935,410 issued May 3, 2011, for Metallized Polymeric Film Reflective Insulation Material;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,935,411 issued May 3, 2011, for Metallized Polymeric Film Reflective Insulation Material;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,221,871 issued July 17, 2012, for Metallized Polymeric Film Reflective Insulation Material;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,327,601 issued Dec. 11, 2012, for Metallized Polymeric Film Reflective Insulation Material; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8,343,614 issued Jan. 11, 2013, for Metallized Polymeric Film Reflective Insulation Material.

Regarding surface burning characteristics, reflective insulation materials are classified based on the measurement of two criteria—the rate at which a flame propagates (“the flame spread index”), and the rate at which smoke propagates (“the smoke developed index”), the suit states.

The reflective insulation and radiant-barrier industry recognized method for measuring the flame spread index and the smoke developed index involves installing the materials inside a tunnel and then setting them on fire to observe how they react. Prior to September 2009, under the tunnel test, the standard method for installing materials that consisted of membranes or thin laminates inside the tunnel during the tunnel test involved the use of poultry netting (or “chicken wire”) to physically support the materials.

Furio Orologio, president and CEO of Covertech Fabricating, Inc., discovered that metallized polymeric film met Class A certification requirements under the tunnel test without the use of poultry netting as a method of mounting.

The inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit are directed to various materials satisfying Class A certification as required by industry standards, according to the suit.

Promethean is seeking compensatory and treble damages, costs, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is requested.

Danny L. Williams, Brian Buss and Matthew Rodgers of Williams Morgan PC in Houston are representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.

 

• Bluebonnet Telecommunications LLC vs Huawei Technologies USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00005

• Bluebonnet Telecommunications LLC vs NEC Casio Mobile Communications Ltd. and NEC Corp. of America Case No. 2:14-cv-00006

• Bluebonnet Telecommunications LLC vs Sonim Technologies Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00007

• Bluebonnet Telecommunications LLC vs ZTE (USA) Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00008

• Bluebonnet Telecommunications LLC vs Alcatel-Lucent S.A. and Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00009

Plaintiff Bluebonnet Technologies is a Texas corporation based in Marshall.

Defendants are makers of smart phones.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,485,511 issued Jan. 16, 1996, for a Method and Apparatus for Determining the Telephony Features Assigned to a Telephone;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,560,274 issued May 6, 2003, for a Transceiver; and

• U.S. Patent No. 6,400,814 issued June 4, 2002, for a Telephone Ringer with a Silencer Screening Feature.

Specifically, the defendants’ accused products and/or systems have an airplane mode feature, a ringer silencer screening feature and features that allow a user to determine whether certain telephony features (e.g., call forwarding and call barring) are activated.

Bluebonnet is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, costs, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief.

Matthew Antonelli, Zachariah Harrington, Larry Thompson Jr. and Cory Johnson of Antonelli Harrington & Thompson LLP in Houston; and S. Calvin Capshaw III, Elizabeth DeRieux, Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw Derieux LLP in Gladewater are representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

Jan. 8

• SimpleAir Inc. vs Google Inc. and YouTube LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00011

Plaintiff SimpleAir is a Texas corporation. The suit states it is an inventor-owned technology licensing company with interests and intellectual property in the wireless content delivery, mobile applications and push notification market spaces. SimpleAir’s patent portfolio is licensed by many leading technology companies, according to the suit.

The defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,601,154 issued Dec. 3, 2013, and U.S. Patent No. 8,572,279 issued Oct. 29, 2013, both patents for a System and Method for Transmission and Data.

According to the suit, the patents are allegedly infringing the patents-in-suit through Gmail, Google+, Google Talk, Google Hangouts, Google Calendar, Google Cloud Message for Chrome, Google Cloud Messaging and Android Cloud to Device Messaging and YouTube service.

John Jeffrey Eichmann of Dovel & Luner LLP in Santa Monica, Calif., and S. Calvin Capshaw and Elizabeth DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater are representing SimpleAir.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

 

TYLER DIVISION

Jan. 6

• Microbix Biosystems Inc. vs Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00003

Plaintiff Microbix is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Ontario.

The defendant is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,270,990 B2 issued Sept. 18, 2007, for Virus Production. The suit alleges Novartis infringes the ‘990 Patent through the Agriflu products made on the same platform or using the same process without authorization.

Microbix is seeking compensation no less than a reasonable royalty, injunctive relief, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, interest and other relief deemed just and proper.

A jury trial is requested.

Edgar Haug of Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP in New York, N.Y., is lead attorney for the plaintiff. Mark Strachan of Sayles Werbner PC in Dallas is also representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to District Judge John D. Love.

More News