Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas
Nov. 1
-Catalina Marketing Corp vs. LDM Group LLC
Catalina Marketing, a Florida-based corporation, claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,240,394 issued May 29, 2001, for a Method and Apparatus for Automatically Generating Advisory Information for Pharmacy Patients. Catalina says it received the patent by assignment from inventor Robert Anthony Uecker.
The claims of the '394 Patent are directed to a system for generating targeted advisory messages for pharmacy patients based on selected monitored data components of each transaction.
According to the original complaint, inventor Uecker was previously employed by Catalina, but was later employed by the defendant, LDM Group. Other senior executives and employees of LDM were also previous employees of Catalina.
Catalina alleges that LDM, without permission or license of Catalina, is making, selling or using products "that embody the invention set forth in the '394 Patent." The defendant's Carepoints patient messaging program is named specifically as an infringing product.
The plaintiff believes that LDM's infringement is willful and deliberate, and will continue unless enjoined by the court.
Catalina is seeking damages -- including profits made by defendant and lost by Catalina as a result of the infringement � treble damages, costs, attorney fees and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.
Sam Baxter of McKool Smith PC in Marshall is lead attorney representing the plaintiffs. Attorneys from Dallas, Chicago and Washington, D.C., are also of counsel for the plaintiffs.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward.
Case No. 2:07-cv-477-TJW
- Microsoft Corp. vs. Charles E. Hill & Assoc. Inc.
Software giant Microsoft has filed a counter suit against Marshall resident Charles E. Hill in response to a patent infringement claim by Hill.
Hill claims he owns the rights to three U.S. patents that are being infringed by users of Microsoft software. Microsoft's counter suit alleges that the Hill patents are unenforceable because Hill made false representations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office when applying for the patents.
Microsoft is asking that the court declare that Microsoft and its customers that use Microsoft software do not infringe any claim of the Hill Patents, declare that the Hill Patents are unenforceable, award Microsoft attorney fees, expenses and costs and other legal relief that may be proper.
Eric H. Findlay of Ramey & Flock PC in Tyler, with assistance from Covington & Burling LLP in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, are representing Microsoft.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.
Case No. 2:07-cv-478-DF
Nov. 2
- PA Advisors LLC vs. Google Inc. et al
Marshall-based PA Advisors alleges that 13 companies named as defendants, including Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, ContextWeb, Specific Media, Fast Search, Pulse 360 and 24/7 Real Media infringe on its patents.
PA Advisors claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,199,067 for a System and Method for Generating Personalized User Profilers and for Utilizing the Generated User Profiles to Perform Adaptive Internet Searches. The '067 Patent was issued March 6, 2001, to inventor Ilya Geller.
Products and services that infringe on the patent include Google Search, Yahoo Search Marketing, Facebook.com.
PA Advisors alleges that the infringement has been willful.
The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, an award of damages, costs, expenses, interest and attorney fees.
Eric Albritton of Longview is representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward.
Case No. 2:07-cv-480-TJW
- Enhanced Security Research LLC vs. Juniper Networks Inc.
Enhanced Security Research is a Texas limited liability corporation that claims to hold the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,119,236 issued Sept. 12, 2000, and U.S. Patent No. 6,304,975 B1 issued Oct. 16, 2001. Both patents have the title "Intelligent Network Security Device and Method."
ESR alleges that Juniper has infringed the '236 Patent through the manufacture, sale and use of versions of Juniper's IDP applications, software, updates and other products.
"Juniper's acts of infringement have caused damage to ESR and ESR is entitled to recover from Juniper the damages sustained as a result of Juniper's wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial," the original complaint states.
ESR also believes that Juniper's infringement is willful and deliberate, entitling ESR to increased damages.
ESR is seeking a permanent injunction against Juniper, enhanced damages, interest, costs, attorney fees and other relief.
Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Brown McCarroll LLP in Longview and the Townsend and Townsend and Crew law firm of Seattle, Wash., are 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-481-TJW-CE
Nov. 5
- Polymer Solvents LLC vs. Reichhold Inc. et al
Polymer Solvents is seeking relief for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,306,943 issued Oct. 23, 2001, for Zero Volatile Organic Solvent Compositions. The '943 Patent was issued to inventor Richard Henry and assigned to Polymer.
Polymer Solvents claims that Reichhold Inc., RPM Wood Finishes Group Inc., the Euclid Chemical Co. and Rust-Oleum Corp. have infringed the '943 Patent.
"Upon information and belief, each defendant, directly or through its subsidiaries � has infringed and continues to infringe the '943 Patent by making, using, selling and/or offering to sell � compositions that are covered by one or more claims of the '943 Patent," the original complaint states.
The plaintiff is asking that defendants account for and pay to Polymer Solvents all damages caused by their infringement and to enhance such damages three times based on any finding of willful infringement. Polymer Solvents is also seeking a permanent injunction, interest, attorney fees, court costs and other just and proper relief.
Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Brown McCarroll LLP in Longview and attorneys from Ireland, Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler; Polasek, Quisenberry & Errington LLP of Bellaire; and Jones & Jones Inc. PC of Marshall are representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom and referred to Magistrate Charles Everingham.
Case No. 2:07-cv-483-DF-CE
Nov. 6
- Anthurium Solutions Inc. vs. MedQuist Inc. et al
Plaintiff Anthurium, a Massachusetts-based corporation, claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,031,998. The '998 Patent for Systems and Methods for Automatically Managing Work Flow Based on Optimization of Job Step Scheduling was issued to A:/SCRIBES Corp. on April 18, 2006.
"Prior to that time, but after filing of its patent application, Scribes disclosed the invention described and claimed in the '998 Patent to MedQuist under non-disclosure agreements," the original complaint states. "Scribes disclosed the invention, including the patent application so that MedQuist could consider incorporating the invention into its products and systems under a commercial relationship."
However, the complaint states that MedQuist then notified Scribes that it was "not interested in the invention."
"Despite this representation, MedQuist uses the invention at least in its DocQuest Enterprise Platform," the suit says.
Scribes similarly disclosed the invention to Delbert Arrendale, president of Arrendale Associates Inc., under a non-disclosure agreement. AAI and Scribes then entered a joint venture agreement to develop and commercialize the invention, but the parties withdrew from the venture before commercialization.
"Despite the termination of the joint venture, AAI has continued to use the invention in its TA+ Technology Platform," the suit continues.
A later patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,604,124 was issued to Scribes from the same application as the '998 Patent.
The suit alleges that MedQuist and AAI were aware of the '998 Patent and continued to infringe the patent.
Then in March 2007, Scribes sold all rights and interest to the '998 Patent and the '124 patent to Anthurium.
In addition, Anthurium alleges that defendant Spheris infringes the '998 Patent through its Clarity Technology Platform.
Anthurium is asking the court to enjoin MedQuist, AAI and Spheris from committing acts of infringement, that the defendants be ordered to pay damages adequate to compensate Anthurium and that the defendants pay enhanced damages, attorney fees, court costs and other relief.
S. Calvin Capshaw of Brown McCarroll LLP in Longview is representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom and referred to Magistrate Charles Everingham.
Case No. 2:07-cv-484-DF-CE
Texarkana Division, Eastern District of Texas
Nov. 5
- Antor Media Corp. vs. AEBN Inc.
Antor Media is a corporation organized in Texas and having a principal place of business in Plano. Antor Media claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,734,961 issued March 31, 1998. The '961 Patent was issued for a Method and Apparatus for Transmitting Information Recorded on Information Storage Means from a Central Server to Subscribers Via a High Data Rate Digital Telecommunications Network.
"The defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the '961 Patent," the plaintiff's original complaint states. "The infringing acts include � products and services relating to the streaming and/or downloading of media, such as video and audio, to devices via a network, such as the Internet."
Antor claims that because of the defendant's infringement it is entitled to recover damages in an amount to be determined at trial and that it will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the defendant is enjoined by the court.
The plaintiff is seeking actual and enhanced damages, attorney fees, court costs and other relief that the court may deem just and proper.
Robert M. Chiavello Jr. of the Dallas firm of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP is attorney-in-charge of the plaintiff's representation. Firms from Longview and Texarkana are of counsel.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom and referred to Magistrate Marcia Crone.
Case No. 5:07-cv-169-DF-CMC
Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas
Nov. 2
- Sovereign Software LLC vs. CDW Corp. et al
Sovereign Software claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,715,314 and 5,909,492 for a Network Sales System and 7,272,639 for Internet Server Access Control and Monitoring Systems.
Sovereign alleges that defendants CDW, Newegg Inc., Redcats USA, Systemax Inc. and Zappos.com Inc. are infringing the patents.
Among the infringing actions is commerce on defendants' Web sites including www.lanebryant.com, www.sportsmansguide.com, www.onestopplus.com and www.bargainoutfitters.com.
Sovereign alleges that the defendants had knowledge of the patents and continued to infringe the patents.
The plaintiff is seeking an injunction, damages adequate to compensate for the patent infringement, treble damages, costs, interests, attorney fees and other just and proper relief.
Kenneth R. Adamo of Jones Day in Dallas is lead attorney for the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Case No. 6:07-cv-511-LED
Lufkin Division, Eastern District of Texas
Nov. 6
- Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. vs. Nichia Corp. and Nichia America Corp.
Korean company Seoul Semiconductor claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,075,742, which is generally related to semiconductor light emitting devices. The '742 Patent was issued Dec. 24, 1991.
Seoul Semiconductor alleges that Nichia Corp., based in Tokushima, Japan, and Nichia America, based in Torrance, Calif. and Detroit, Mich., have infringed the '742 Patent.
"The defendants manufacture for sale and/or sell gallium nitride-based semiconductor light emitting devices including products having model nos. NSPG500S and NS6W083T," the original complaint states.
The plaintiff claims the products infringe the '742 Patent and that the defendants have committed the infringement willfully.
"Specifically, defendants have been on notice of the '742 Patent since at least 2003 when they were contacted by plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest under the patent," the complaint states. "Despite having been explicitly informed at that time of the existence of the '742 Patent, the particular products in question (namely 'high brightness light emitting diode), defendants have acted recklessly."
Seoul Semiconductor is seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, enhanced damages, interest, court costs, attorney fees and other just and proper relief.
Claude E. Welch of Lufkin is representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ron Clark.
Case No. 9:07-cv-273-RHC
Nov. 7
- The Ohio Willow Wood Co. vs. Thermo-Ply Inc.
Ohio Willow Wood claims to hold the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,291,182 for Gel and Cushioning Devices issued Nov. 6, 2007.
"Thermo-Ply has been and is now infringing the '182 Patent by making, using and/or selling � products that embody the invention claimed in the '182 Patent," the original complaint states.
The plaintiff also alleges that the infringement has been willful and that if the defendant is not enjoined Ohio Willow Wood will suffer irreparable harm including loss of business, competitive advantage and goodwill for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
Ohio Willow Wood adds that an injunction only has the potential for minimal injury to Thermo-Ply because it does not prevent the defendant from conducting business without infringing the '182 Patent.
The plaintiff is asking for an accounting of damages no less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages, attorney fees and other just and proper relief.
Claude E. Welch of Lufkin is representing the plaintiff with the Standley Law Group of Dublin, Ohio, of counsel.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ron Clark.
Case No. 9:07-cv-274-RHC