Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Marilyn Tennissen Sep. 2, 2014, 9:45am


Aug. 25 

• Integrated Claims Systems LLC v Molina Healthcare of Texas Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00866

Plaintiff Integrated Claims Systems (ICS) is a New York limited liability company.

Defendant Molina Healthcare is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Irving.

ICS claims to own the rights to the following patents-in-suit:

U.S. Patent No. 7,178,020 issued Feb. 13, 2007, for Attachment Integrated Claims System and Operating Method Therefor; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,676,609 issued March 18, 2014, for Attachment Integrated Claims Systems and Operating Methods Therefor.

According to the suit, Andrew DiRienzo, PhD., is the named inventor of the patents-in-suit. DiRienzo has a Bachelor of Science degree in astronomy from the University of Arizona, and a doctorate in Physics from the University of Arizona. He has authored several technical articles, according to the suit.

DiRienzo developed expertise in tomography while serving in the U.S. Navy. In 1994, a surgeon who was aware of Dr. DiRienzo’s radar work asked if it would be possible to electronically send an MRI from upstate New York to a New York City hospital. Based on his experience, Dr. DiRienzo believed that this could be done and he began conducting research.

Dr. DiRienzo was further spurred to action when his mother required dental surgery in 1995. The dentist complained that for many procedures, he was required to obtain prior approval from insurance companies.

That involved mailing hard copies of the approval form and X-rays that supported the medical need for the procedure to the insurance companies and then waiting for their reply before performing the procedures.

Dr. DiRienzo immediately recognized how inefficient this process was. For almost 20 years now, Dr. DiRienzo has researched and developed systems and methods for processing insurance claims and the forms that typically accompany them. Dr. DiRienzo’s efforts have been rewarded with 12 United States Patents in this field. He is also the named inventor of four other United States Patents and has a number of pending patent applications, according to the suit.

Defendant Molina is accused of infringing the DiRienzo patents through its Insurance Claim System.

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

The plaintiff is represented by Charles Ainsworth of Parker Bunt & Ainsworth PC in Tyler; John F. Ward, David Lindenbaum and Patrick Colsher of Ward & Zinna LLC in Summit, N.J.


• Rembrandt Patent Innovations LLC and Rembrandt Secure Computing LP v Apple Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00867

Plaintiff Rembrandt is a Virginia limited liability company with a principal place of business in Bala Cynwyd, Penn.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,185,678 issued Feb. 6, 2001, for Secure and Reliable Boot Strap Architecture.

In general, the technology at issue in the Accused Products relates to systems and methods for secure booting and recovery in an electronic device.

Apple is accused of infringing the ‘678 Patent through Apple’s servers and other electronic devices that support iTunes functionality and any devices configured to operate with iPhone OS or iOS, including iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5S, iPhone 5C, iPod Touch 1st Generation, iPod Touch 2nd Generation, iPod Touch 3rd Generation, iPad 4th Generation, the Apple iPad Mini and all other reasonably similar products.

On information and belief, Apple knew of the ’678 Patent at least as early as 2008. The ’678 Patent was cited by the European Patent Office, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and Apple during the prosecution of Apple’s own patents and patent applications, according to the suit.

During the prosecution of Apple’s own patents and applications, members of Apple’s in-house legal team have met (both by telephone and in-person) with staff from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the expressly state purpose of discussing the ‘678 Patent, the suit states.

Rembrandt is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, interest, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. A jury trial is demanded.

The following attorneys/firms are representing Rembrandt in the litigation: Trey Yarbrough of Yarbrough Wilcox PLLC in Tyler; Gerald F. Ivey, Robert Yoches and Christopher Blackford of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP in Washington, D.C.; Stephen Kabakoff, Anita Bhushan and Ben Schlesinger of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP in Atlanta, Ga., and Jacob Schroeder of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP in Palo Alto, Calif.


Aug. 28

• Effective Exploration LLC v Classic Operating Co. LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00869

Plaintiff Effective Exploration is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Plano.

Defendant Classic is a Delaware limited liability company with an office in Houston.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 8,813,840 issued Aug. 26, 2014, for a Method and System for Accessing Subterranean Deposits from the Surface and Tools Therefor.

“Defendant has been directly infringing and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’840 Patent in the United States through at least its operation of oil and gas wells throughout the United States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including, but not limited to, the following wells (identified by API numbers): 423658059, 4236537824, 236537826, and 4236537825, or any combination of four or more horizontal wells, which are located on the same drilling pad at the surface, have non-common surface locations on the drilling pad, have a wellbore extending from the surface comprising a substantially vertical portion extending into a subterranean zone comprising shale and a substantially horizontal drainage bore extending from the substantially vertical portion, and where each well produces a fluid to the surface,” the suit claims.

Because of Defendant’s alleged infringement of the ’840 Patent, Plaintiff claims it has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in the future.

Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is requested.

Steven R. Daniels of Farney Daniels PC in Georgetown, Texas, is lead attorney for the plaintiff.


Aug. 29

Trover Group Inc. and The Security Center Inc. v Vicon Industries Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00872

Plaintiff Trover Group is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Plano. According to the suits, Trover was formerly known as Dozier Financial Corp.

Plaintiff The Security Center Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas. Plaintiffs Security Center and Trover are sister corporations, the suit states.

U.S. Patent No. 5,751,346 issued May 12, 1998, for an Image Retention and Information Security System. The patent relates generally to video monitoring systems, in particular systems that compare images to determine if changes in the image have occurred prior to storing those images for later retrieval.

According to the suits, the ‘346 Patent was originally assigned to Dozier Financial Corp., a company owned and controlled by Charles Dozier, one of the named inventors of the patent, and his family.

Plaintiff Security Center is also a business owned and controlled by Dozier and his family that has been granted an exclusive license of the ‘346 Patent from Trover. Security Center makes and sells the IRIS line of digital video systems and the EyzOn camera, which are commercial embodiments of the ‘346 Patent.

Defendant Vicon makes and sells numerous cameras and digital voice recorders that infringe the ‘346 Patent, according to the suit. Allegedly infringing products include Vicon V-Cell/V-Cell-IP Camera, V905-CUBE HD Camera, V920D Series Cameras, V960-N Series Cameras, V9360 Series Cameras, CE102B-NIR Series Cameras, CE102D-NIR Series Cameras, CE202D-N Series Cameras, CE202D-WN Series Cameras, HDExpress Series of NVR/DVR Recorders.

The Accused Products offer image streams in a choice of compression formats and compare two digitized images to determine if there has been a change in the pixels of the images that exceed a pre-set threshold.

Trover and Security Center are seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steven N. Williams, Kenneth Kula and William Duffy of McDole & Williams PC in Dallas.



Aug. 26

• EMG Technology LLC v Gilt Groupe Holdings Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00720

• EMG Technology LLC v Sally Beauty Supply LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00721

Plaintiff EMG is a California limited liability company based in Los Angeles, Calif.

Gilt Groupe and Sally Beauty Supply are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,600,497 issued July 29, 2003, for an Apparatus and Method to Navigate Interactive Television Using Unique Inputs with a Remote Control; and U.S. Patent No. 7,194,698 issued March 20, 2007, for a Method to Advertise and Search on Television for Web Content Using a Simplified Interface.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against Gilt, compensatory damages including a reasonable royalty and lost profits, enhanced or exemplary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is requested.

Charles Ainsworth and Robert C. Bundt of Parker Bunt & Ainsworth PC in Tyler are representing the plaintiff. Stanley M. Gibson and Gregory S. Cordrey of Jeffer Managels Butler & Mitchell LLP in Los Angeles, Calif., are of counsel.


Aug. 27

• 3RD Eye Surveillance LLC v The City of Fort Worth, Texas Case No. 6:14-cv-00725

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

The patents-in-suit are:

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

The city of Forth Worth is accused of infringing on the ‘980 Patent by using security systems including those described in the Professional Services Agreement between e-Watch Corp. and the Fort Worth.

The plaintiff alleges the infringement has been willful.

3rd Eye is currently investigating whether Fort Worth infringes the ‘085 and the ‘344 Patents, but needs more information before making its determination.

The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, interest, costs, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, expenses and other relief to which it may be entitled.

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

More News