Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division

Aug. 1

-Widevine Technologies Inc. vs. Verimatrix Inc.

Widevine claims it is the provider of multiplatform and multiform content security solutions for video operators that allows studios and broadasters to protect premium content, for example, through encryption over the Internet. Widevine claims the process is copyrighted under U.S. Patent No. 7,165,175, issued Jan. 16, 2007, to Widevine.

"Verimatrix was infringing of the '175 Patent at least as early as March 2007, when Widevine sent a letter to Verimatrix informing Verimatrix that Patent '175 had been issued," the original complaint by Widevine filed Aug. 1 in the Eastern District of Texas states. "Verimatrix continued to infringe despite receiving notice of the '175 patent."

Widevine claims it has suffered irreparable harm from Verimatix's infringing activities, and will continue to suffer unless the court enjoins.

Widevine is seeking treble damages.

Matt Orwig of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal of Dallas is representing Widevine.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00321-TJW-CE

Aug. 6

- Harvey vs. Apple Inc.

Michigan resident Thomas Harvey claims he has the rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,753,671 and 6,762,587 issued in April 2001 and July 2004.

The patents are for an improved recharger for a portable device that includes rechargeable battery and affixed light emitting device.

Harvey alleges that Apple sells the Apple Portable Power Adapter in combination with the Apple notebook which has all the elements of the '671 and '584 patents. The elements include a portable electronic device recharger, a rechargeable battery, a battery compartment, power adapter and an illuminated connector terminus.

Harvey claims that the defendant has been notified of its right to patents.

"Defendant has refused to license or cease infringement," the original petition states.

The plaintiff is asking the court to enjoin Apple from infringing on the patents and that all infringing devices be impounded. Harvey seeks actual damages including profits attributed to the infringement and because it alleges the infringement was willful, the plaintiff also seeks damages in treble.

Joseph Zito from Washington, D.C., is representing Harvey.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00327-TJW-CE

Aug. 6

-Callaway Golf Co. vs. TaylorMade Golf Co. Inc.

Callaway Golf, which says it has been in the business of manufacturing and distributing golf equipment since 1982, claims it has rights to the U.S. Patent No. 5,704,849.

The '849 Patent was issued Jan. 6, 1998, for a "Golf Club Head with Audible Vibration Attentuation." Basically, that means that the club head has a structure on the front wall that decreases audible vibration when a golf ball is struck.

"TaylorMade markets and sells golf clubs in direct competition with Callaway," the original petition states. "Callaway Golf has been damaged and has suffered irreparable injury due to the acts of infringement by defendant and will continue to suffer irreparable injury unless defendant's activities are enjoined."

Callaway is seeking reasonable royalties, interest, treble damages and the impounding or destruction of the infringing material.

Wesley Hill of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley of Tyler is representing Callaway.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00329-LED

-Sharp Corp. vs. Samsung Electronics Co. LTD et al

Sharp, a Japanese company, is taking on Samsung, a Korean company, over U.S. Patent No. 4,649,383, a "Method of Driving Liquid Crystal Display Devices."

Sharp claims that Samsung has willfully sold LCD modules and LCD products in violation of the patent. Sharp names a total of five related patents dealing with LCD devices in the suit.

"As a consequence of defendant's infringement, Sharp is entitled to recovery damages adequate to compensate it for the infringement complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty," the original petition states.

Sharp is asking the court to enjoin Samsung from further infringing activities, compensatory damages including lost profit and treble damages.

Otis Carroll of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley in Tyler is representing Sharp.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00330-TJW

Aug. 8

-Screentone Systems Corp. vs. Cannon USA et al

Screentone is claiming the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,166,809, issued Nov. 24, 1992, for a method for digital half-toning.

Screentone names Cannon, Eastman Kodak, Panasonic, Ricoh, Konika, Minolta, Kyocera and Heidelberg USA as defendants in the suit.

"Defendants' acts of infringement generally involve manufacture, use and sale of printers or other imaging products which operate to reproduce the image by the claimed digital half-tone technology," the original complaint states.

The plaintiff says that with the exception of Heidelberg USA, each of the defendants were notified in writing in March 2006 of their activities that infringed on the '809 Patent.

"The notified defendants have knowingly and willfully infringed on the '809 Patent since at least the time of the notices," the plaintiff claims.

Screentone is seeking reasonable royalties, interest and other damages.

Attorney T. John Ward Jr. of Longview is representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.

Case No. 2:07-cv-00340-DF

-Commil USA LLC vs. Cisco Systems Inc.

Commil claims it has the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,430,395 for a Wireless Private Branch Exchange (WPBX) and Communicating Between Mobile Units and Base Stations. The '395 Patent was issued Aug. 6, 2002.

Commil says Cisco manufactures, uses, supplies or sells products that infringe on the '395 Patent.

"At no time has Cisco Systems Inc. been licensed under any of Commil USA's patents," the original petition states.

The plaintiff alleges that Cisco's actions were willful and deliberate, and is seeking damages no less than reasonable royalties.

Richard Sayles of Dallas is representing Commil.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.

Case No. 2:07-cv-00341-DF-CE

-Marshall Electronics Co. LLC vs. Digital On-Demand Inc. et al

Marshall Electronics is claiming the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,164,534 for a method for Accessing Electronic Data Via a Familiar Printed Medium.

The plaintiff alleges that Digital On-Demand, doing business as RedDotNet, and Barnes & Noble Inc. are infringing on the '534 patent.

Marshall cites Digital On-Demand as using in-store content servers referred to as "dots" as an infringement on the patent.

The plaintiff is asking the court to enjoin the defendants from infringing activities and is seeking actual damages and other relief as the court may deem just and appropriate.

Mark Born of Dallas is representing Marshall Electronics.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00342-TJW

More News