Recent patent/copyright infringement cases filed in U.S. District Court

Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

Aug. 31

- Elcommerce.com Inc. vs. SAP AG and SAP America Inc.

Elcommerce claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,947,903 issued on Sept. 20, 2005.

The company alleges that SAP's NetWeaver, a service-oriented application and integration platform, infringes on the '903 patent.

"SAP's past and continued direct infringement and inducing infringement of the '903 patent has damaged Elcommerce, entitling Elcommerce to damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but no less than reasonable royalty," the original complaint states.

Elcommerce alleges that SAP knew of the '903 patent since at least August 2006 and in September 2006 analyzed the patent.

"After analyzing the '903 patent, SAP expressed a substantial interest in acquiring rights to the '903 patent, but would not engage in negotiations until Elcommerce waived willful infringement and agreed that no negotiations would be in writing," the plaintiff alleges.

Elcommerce did not agree to SAP's conditions, so no negotiations were conducted and SAP continued its infringement, the suit says.

The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against SAP, treble damages, fees, court costs and interest.

Christopher R. Benson of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP of Austin is representing the plaintiff.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00383-TJW

- Ocular Research of Boston vs. Allergan

Ocular Research of Boston claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,578,586 for Dry Eye Treatment Process and Solution, issued Nov. 26, 1996.

According to the court documents, Ocular created a method and composition for reducing the evaporation of an aqueous layer from the surface of the eye to treat a condition known as "dry eye" by administration of an emulsion formula to the eye.

The plaintiff's original complaint states that prior to the issuance of the '586 patent, Ocular had plans to license its technology to Allergan and claims the two companies had a confidential disclosure agreement.

"ORB disclosed to Allergan confidential information pertaining to its emulsion formulation and its use for the treatment of dry eye, and Allergan declined to acquire a license to the same from ORB," the complaint states.

ORB believes that Allergan used the confidential information to develop its own products to treat dry eye that infringe on the '586 patent. The plaintiff alleges that Allergan's infringement is willful and deliberate.

ORB is seeking a permanent injunction against Allergan, treble damages, interest, court costs, attorney fees and "other relief that the court may deem just and proper."

D. Neil Smith of Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP in Daingerfield is representing the plaintiff.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-oo385-TJW

- Phoenix Licensing LLC et al vs. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. et al

Phoenix Licensing has named several defendants in a patent infringement suit, including Chase Manhattan Mortgage, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Citibank, Countrywide Home Loans, Discover Financial Services, GMAC Mortgage, Direct Response Corp., Warner Insurance Co. and State Farm.

Phoenix claims it holds the rights to several patents relating to marketing and sales of financial products, including U.S. Patent No. 5,987,434 for a Method and Apparatus for Transacting Marketing and Sales of Financial Products issued Dec. 1, 2006.

Phoenix is seeking a trial by jury and is asking the court to enjoin the defendant, award compensatory damages, treble damages, court costs, attorney fees, interest and "other relief as justice requires."

Gregory S. Dovel of California is representing the plaintiff.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00387-TJW-CE

Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas

Aug. 29

- Humanscale Corp. vs. Weber Knapp Company

Humanscale claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,198,239 for a Keyboard Support Mechanism issued April 3. The patent is for a mechanism with a novel articulation arm that will perform vertical movement of the keyboard shelf.

Weber Knapp is infringing on the '239 patent through several products including the Cobra Arm, the Houdini, the Easy Rider and the Stubby Easy Rider.

"Humanscale is entitled to recover from defendant the damages sustained as a result of the defendant's wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial," the plaintiff's original complaint states.

The plaintiff alleges that unless Weber Knapp is enjoined by the court, it will suffer additional irreparable harm and impairment of the value of its patent rights.

Humanscale is seeking treble damages, court costs, attorney fees, interest and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

Michael E. Jones of Potter Minton in Tyler is representing the plaintiff.

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

Case No. 6:07-cv-00411-LED