Recent patent/copyright infringement suits filed in U.S. District Courts

By Marilyn Tennissen | Oct 17, 2007

Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

Oct. 16

- Mobile Micromedia Solutions LLC vs. General Motors Corp.

Mobile Micromedia Solutions, a Texarkana-based limited liability corporation, claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,420,931 issued May 30, 1995.

The patent is for a vehicle entertainment system that includes a high quality signal for one passenger and a low quality signal for another passenger. The system also includes a controller to monitor the high and low quality signal output to switch between the front and rear speakers responding to the high and low quality signals.

MMS claims that GM infringes the '931 Patent in the past and continues to infringe the patent by making, using and selling products and services covered by the patent.

As a consequence of the infringement, MMS alleges that it has been irreparably damaged to an extent not yet determined. MMS claims that GM's infringement has been willful and deliberate.

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

Nicholas Patton of Patton, Tidwell & Schroder LLP in Texarkana is representing the plaintiff.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00455-DF

Oct. 17

-VTran Media Technologies LLC vs. Comcast Corp. et al

VTran Media, based in Marshall, claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 4,890,320 issued Dec. 26, 1989 and U.S. Patent No. 4,995,078 issued Feb. 19, 1991. The patents are for a Television Broadcast System for Selective Transmission of Viewer-Chosen Programs at Viewer-Requested Times.

VTran alleges that defendants Comcast, Charter Communications, Verizon Communications and Time Warner Cable infringe the patents through their respective video-on-demand services.

Each act of infringement, VTran alleges, has been without authorization or license from VTran.

The plaintiff claims it has been irreparably harmed by the infringement and has no adequate remedy at law unless the defendants are enjoined by the court.

Plaintiff is seeking damages in an amount subject to proof at trial as well as interest and other relief deemed just and proper.

Andrew Spangler of Marshall is representing the plaintiff.

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

Case No. 2:07-cv-00457-TJW-CE

Sherman Division, Eastern District of Texas

Oct. 16

-Sanjay P. Muralidhar vs. The Ticket Reserve Inc.

Plaintiff Muralidhar is a resident of Plano and claims to hold the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,206,755 issued April 14, 2007.

The plaintiff alleges that Ticket Reserve infringes on the '755 Patent and induces professional team organizations to join in the infringement with the Fan Forward program.

According to the Ticket Reserve Web site, "Six years ago Ticket Reserve was founded on a simple principle; people only REALLY want to attend a major sporting event when their team plays in it."

The program allows fans to reserve face-value tickets well in advance of a sporting event. "That insures them a ticket should their team qualify for a post-season event," the site says.

Ticket Reserve also allows the purchaser to trade in ticket reservations, sometimes for a profit.

Muralidhan is asking that the court enjoin Ticket Reserve from further infringing activities and is seeking a reasonable royalty. The plaintiff is asking that the damages be trebled.

Thomas C. Wright of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider and referred to Magistrate Don D. Bush.

Case No. 4:07-cv-00481-MHS-DDB

Texarkana Division, Eastern District of Texas

Oct. 16

-ESN LLC vs. Cisco Systems Inc.

In 2002, ESN claims it filed Patent Application No. 10/122,589 which was published as U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0176,404. The patent application generally relates to switching systems for communicating voice and other data over a packet-switched broadband network.

ESN claims that Cisco and Cisco-Linksys had actual notice of the '404 Application at least as early as Aug. 11, 2006, when ESN notified Cisco in writing.

ESN alleges that Cisco Integrated Services Routers, Cisco Unified Communications 500 Series, Linksys SPA-9000, LinksysOne SVR-300 and related modules infringe on the claims of the '404 Application.
Notice was given to Cisco counsel on June 8, 2007, regarding Cisco's infringement of '404.

On Oct. 16, 2007, the '404 Application was approved and issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,283,519 to ESN.

ESN is seeking a reasonable royalty for patent violations from Aug. 11, 2006, until Oct. 16, 2007, when the '519 Patent was issued.

The plaintiff is asking that the court enjoin Cisco from further infringement and is seeking damages, court costs, attorney fees and interest.

Eric Albritton of Longview is representing the plaintiff.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom and referred to Magistrate Caroline Craven.

Case No. 5:07-cv-00156-DF-CMC

More News

The Record Network