Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

Sept. 27

- Performance Pricing Inc. vs. Google Inc. et al

Performance Pricing, an Austin-based corporation, claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,978,253 for a System and Method for Transacting Business Over a Global Communication Network Such As the Internet.

Performance alleges that defendants Google, AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo! are infringing on the '253 Patent. Infringing products/systems include Google AdWords, AOL Search Marketplace, Microsoft Ad Center and Yahoo! Search Marketing.

"Without license or permission from plaintiff, defendants have infringed on '253 and will continue to do so unless enjoined by the court," the original complaint states.

The plaintiff claims to have suffered irreparable damage and is entitled to recover damages for the infringement. Performance is seeking compensatory damages, court costs, attorney fees, interest and "other relief as justice requires."

Calvin Capshaw of Longview is representing Performance Pricing.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00432-LED

Sept. 28

- Access Product Marketing LLC vs. Medical Depot Inc. dba Drive Medical Design and Manufacturing

Access Product Marketing claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,066,484 B2 for a Foldable Mobility Support Device issued June 27, 2006.

APM alleges that Drive Medical Design infringes on the '484 Patent by selling rolling walkers, also referred to as "rollators." The infringement suit specifically names Drive's D-Lite Aluminum Rollator product.

The suit states that Drive Medical has five dealers in Longview, one in Marshall, one in Plano, two in Henderson and one in Carthage that sell the Rollator in the Eastern District of Texas.

"Drive Medical has received notice of its infringement of the '484 Patent," the suit states, "Specifically by virtue of the fact that APM has marked its products that are covered by claims of the '484 Patent with the patent number."

The plaintiff APM claims that it sent Drive Medical a letter on Aug. 22, 2007, that included a representative claim chart/infringement analysis showing how Drive Medical's D-Lite Aluminum Rollator infringes on the '484 Patent.

"Despite APM's Aug. 22 letter, Drive Medical has continued to infringe the '484 Patent," the complaint states.

The plaintiff is seeking damages no less than reasonable royalty, as well as increased damages because it believes Drive Medical's infringement was willful and deliberate. APM is also seeking an injunction against Drive, court costs, attorney fees and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

T. John "Johnny" Ward Jr. of Longview is representing the plaintiff.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00434-LED

-Tidel Engineering LP vs. Fire King Security Products LLC

Tidel Engineering, a Carrollton, Texas-based company, claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,813,510 and 5,742,034. The patents cover designs for point-of-sale drop safes and change making mechanisms that include coin and bill dispensing features in which the user can select the denomination of the coin or bill.

The plaintiff alleges that Fire King infringes the patents its D8V2 Autobank Cash Handling Safe, V1 and V2 Bill Validating Safes and V8/V2 Combination Safes.

Tidel is seeking an injunction against Fire King, damages, fees, court costs, interest and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

Charles E. Phipps of Locke Liddell & Sapp PLLC in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.

Case No. 2:07-cv-00435-TJW-CE

Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas


Sept. 28

- Greenfix Golf Inc. vs. Ahead Inc.

Greenfix Golf claims it has the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,238,126 B1 for a Golf Green Repair Device Method and Apparatus issued July 3, 2007.

Greenfix alleges that Ahead Inc. infringes on the '126 Patent.

"The infringement has caused damage to Greenfix and Greenfix is entitled to recover damages sustained by defendant's wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial," the original complaint states.

"Ahead's infringement of Greenfix's exclusive rights under the patent will continue to damage Greenfix, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law unless Ahead is enjoined by the court," the suit states.

Greenfix is asking for a complete accounting by Ahead, an injunction by the court, actual damages with interest, attorney fees, court costs and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

Mathew D. Murphey of Gordon & Rees LLP in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

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

Case No. 6:07-cv-00460-LED

Lufkin Division, Eastern District of Texas

Sept. 27

- American Safety Razor Co. LLC vs. Dorco USA Inc and Pace Shave Inc.

The plaintiff, American Safety Razor, says its roots can be traced back 130 years and that it has been in the shaving razor and blade business under a variety of brands, "some of which have become icons of American culture."

Among the brands listed by ASR are Burma-Shave, Flicker, GEM, Personna and Bump Fighter.

The company claims that one of its predecessors introduced the Star Razor in 1875, the first safety razor made in the U.S. and in 1969 ASR introduced Face Guard the first guarded blade marketed in the U.S.

ASR claims it has an extensive portfolio of intellectual property focused on razor and blade technology, including U.S. Patent No. 5,341,571.

The plaintiff alleges that Pace Shave Inc. manufactures, packages and distributes shaving razors and blades which are "virtually identical."

Also, the plaintiff alleges that Pace Shave, with the purpose of deceiving the public, has deliberately and willfully marked their products with ASR patent numbers.

The defendant did not receive any consent from ASR before marking its products with ASR patents, the complaint states.

"As a result of defendant's false marking, ASR has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury including, but not limited to, damage to its reputation and loss of goodwill," the complaint states.

The plaintiff is asking the court to enter a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from falsely marking their products with ASR patent numbers, infringing ASR copyrights and from "otherwise engaging in unfair competition with ASR."

ASR wants the defendant to remove and destroy all the mismarked products, produce corrective advertising and report in writing the manner in which they have complied with the injunction.

ASR is seeking adequate damages to compensate for the defendant's patent infringement in an amount no less than reasonable royalty. Because ASR believes the defendant's infringement was willful, it is also seeking treble damages, attorney fees, costs, interest and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

J. Thad Heartfield of Beaumont is representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ron H. Clark.

Case No. 9:07-cv-00229-RHC

Sept. 28

- Computer Acceleration Corp. vs. Toshiba America Inc. et al

Computer Acceleration, based in Lufkin, claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,933,630 for a Program Launch Acceleration Using RAM Cache issued Aug. 3, 1999.

Computer Acceleration alleges that defendants Toshiba, Hewlett-Packard, Gateway, IBM, Sony, Acer, Dell and Lenovo infringe on the '630 Patent. The defendants' products, including Toshiba Protege, Compaq Presario and Dell Inspirion, all have Windows XP and Vista that accelerate the launch of computer programs.

The plaintiff alleges that defendants will continue to infringe the claims of the '630 Patent unless enjoined by the court, and that each the defendants' acts of infringement are causing irreparable harm to Computer Acceleration Corp.

"Computer Acceleration has no adequate remedy at law to redress the acts of infringement," the original complaint states. "The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction against defendants."

The plaintiff is seeking damages, costs, fees, interest and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.

Mike McKool Jr. of McKool Smith in Marshall is representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ron Clark.

Case No. 9:07-cv-00235-RHC

More News