MARSHALL DIVISION

June 2 

My Health Inc. v Alere Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00652

My Health Inc. v BodyMedia Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00653

My Health Inc. v Cardiomedix Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00654

My Health Inc. v Confident Hawaii LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00655

My Health Inc. v Entra Health Systems LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00657

My Health Inc. v Healthrageous Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00658

My Health Inc. v Medisana AG Case No. 2:14-cv-00659

My Health Inc. v Nonin Medical Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00660

My Health Inc. v Pleio Health Support Systems Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00661

My Health Inc. v Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00662

My Health Inc. v Sotera Wireless Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00663

My Health Inc. v Vivify Health Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00664

According to the complaints, while affiliated with the University of Rochester, Dr. Michael E. Eiffert and Lisa C. Schwartz invented a unique technology that assists health care providers in monitoring and treating patients. On Sept. 2, 2003, the University of Rochester was awarded U.S. Patent No. 6,612,985 for a Method and System for Monitoring and Treating a Patient.

The ‘985 Patent was then assigned by the University of Rochester to plaintiff My Health Inc. Dr. Eiffert, a resident of Plano, is the CEO of My Health Inc.

The suits state that My Health is an early stage company, fostering medical technologies through the proof of concept stage for larger, more established entities. The company focuses on serving as a pipeline for new technologies, assisting scientists and engineers in bringing their ideas to fruition and ultimately, to companies with the expertise to market on a global scale.

The allegedly infringing products include the Alere Diabetes Manager and Apollo, Bodymedia FIT Armbands, FIT Coach Feeback, ProConnect, Telehealth/Cardiac Event Remote Monitoring Services, Confidant 3.0, Entra Health MyGlucoHealthMeter, MyHealthPoint Platform, Healthrageous Health Monitoring Management Solution, VitaDock GlucoDock, Nonin aVISION, Pleio’s GoodStart Program and Health Monitor, the Health Buddy System, Sotera ViSi Mobile Patient Monitoring System and Vivify’s Cloud-Based Remote Care Management Platform.

My Health is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Elizabeth Derieux and S. Calvin Capshaw of Capshaw Derieux LLP in Gladewater and C. Dale Quisenberry, John Polasek and Jeffrey S. David of Polasek Quisenberry & Errington LLP in Bellaire. Joseph Pia of Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss LLC in Salt Lake City, Utah; and Michael R. Wolford of The Wolford Law Firm LLP in Rochester, N.Y., are of counsel.

 

PetAware LLC v Dog’s Play and Training Center Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00656

Plaintiff PetAware LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its place of business in Dallas.

The defendants named in the suit are Dog’s Play and Training Center Inc., Radio Systems Corp., Premier Pet Products LLC, Petsmart Inc., Petsense Inc. and Does 1-10.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 8,249,919 B2 and U.S. Patent No. 8,050,964. According to the suit, the PetAware patents involve product marketing and branding through a patented digital labeling system, apparatus and/or method. The patented digital labeling system can include a CD, DVD, CD-Rom, memory card, USB flash drive or other digital communication device attached to a product or other merchandise.

Some of the infringing products include the Gentle Leader headcollar, the Gentle Leader Deluxe headcollar and the Eco headcollar.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, treble damages for willful infringement, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper.

A jury trial is requested.

Elizabeth L. DeRieux and S. Calvin Capshaw of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater are representing the plaintiff. Joseph G. Pia of Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss in Southlake is of counsel.

 

June 3

Joseph Smith v Honeywell International Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00665

Joseph Smith v Orbcomm Inc. and Startrak Information Technologies LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00666

Plaintiff Joseph D. Smith is a Texas resident living in Henderson.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 6,611,686 issued Aug. 26, 2003, for a Tracking Control and Logistics System and Method.

According to the complaint, Smith is the lawful owner and assignee of all rights in the ‘686 Patent.

The defendants provide real-time wireless asset tracking and monitoring products and systems that are used to track, monitor, control and communicate with assets, fleets, vessels, cargo and cargo containers around the world.

Allegedly infringing products include the web-based ViewPoint tracking and mapping application portal and ReeferTrak fleet management systems.

Plaintiff Joseph Smith is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, costs and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is requested.

David K. Anderson of Anderson & Cunningham PC in Houston is attorney-in-charge for Smith.

 

TYLER DIVISION

June 4

3rd Eye Surveillance LLC v The City of Frisco, Texas Case No. 6:14-cv-00533

3rd Eye Surveillance LLC v The City of Irving, Texas Case No. 6:14-cv-00535

3rd Eye Surveillance LLC v The Town of Addison, Texas Case No. 6:14-cv-00536

Plaintiff 3rd Eye is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

U.S. Patent No. 6,778,085 issued Aug. 17, 2004, for a Security System and Method with Realtime Imagery;

U.S. Patent No. 6,798,344 issued Sept. 28, 2004, for a Security Alarm System and Method with Realtime Streaming Video; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,323,980 issued Jan. 29, 2008, for a Security System and Method with Realtime Imagery.

The patents relate generally to video security systems, and in particular to such systems that record, store, and transmit images through the use of computer equipment, digital storage, and an electronic communications network, according to the suit.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, treble damages for willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, expenses and other relief to which it may be entitled.

A jury trial is requested.

Stephen A. Kennedy of Kennedy Law PC in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

 

June 4

Straight Path IP Group Inc. v Blackberry Ltd. and Blackberry Corp. Case No. 6:14-cv-00534

Plaintiff Straight Path IP Group claims Blackberry has been infringing the following patents-in-suit:

U.S. Patent No. 6,009,469 for a Graphic User Interface for Internet Telephony Application;

U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 for a Point-to-Point Protocol; and

U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 for a Point-to-Point Computer Network Communication Utility Utilizing Dynamically Assigned Network Protocol Addresses.

The allegedly infringing products are primarily used or primarily adapted for use in point-to-point network communications devices including smartphone handsets and tablet computers such as BlackBerry Video Chat, the BlackBerry Z10 and the BlackBerry PlayBook.

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

Michael T. Renaud of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC in Boston, Mass., is lead attorney for the plaintiff, with T. John Ward, T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

More News