Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

Nov. 21

  • Software Rights Archive LLC vs. Google Inc. et al

    Software Rights Archive filed a suit against Internet search engines Google, Yahoo!, IAC Search, AOL and Lycos, alleging the companies infringed three of its patents.

    In question are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,544,352; 5,832,494; and 6,233,571 for a Method and Apparatus for Indexing, Searching and Displaying Data.

    "Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the patents by their use, offer for sale and sale of search engines, systems and services covered by the claims of the patents," the original complaint states. "The acts of infringement by defendants have caused damage to SRA."

    SRA is seeking a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from further infringement, damages adequate to compensate SRA for the infringement no less than reasonable royalty, enhanced damages for willful infringement, interest, court costs, attorney fees and other relief as the court deems just.

    The plaintiff is represented by lead attorney Lee Kaplan of Smyser Kaplan & Veselka LLP in Houston, with S. Calvin Capshaw of Brown, McCarroll LLP in Longview of counsel.

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

    Case No. 2:07-cv-511-TJW-CE

  • Alexsam Inc vs. United Health Group et al

    Texas-based Alexsam Inc. claims to hold the rights to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,000,608 and 6,189,787 for a multifunction card system.

    The plaintiff alleges that defendants United Health Group Inc. and Exante Bank have infringed the '608 and '787 Patents.

    "Each defendant has solicited business � and attempted to derive financial benefit from residents � including benefits directly related to the instant patent infringement," the complaint states.

    The plaintiff is asking that each defendant account for and pay to Alexsam all damages caused by the infringement. Alexsam is also seeking interest, fees, costs and other relief that the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.

    The plaintiff is represented by Randy McClanahan of Houston.

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

    Case No. 2:07-cv-512-TJW

    Nov. 27

  • Jerry David Harthcock vs. MIPS Technologies Inc. et al

    Plaintiff Jerry David Harthcock is a private inventor residing in Austin. On Feb. 12, 2002, Harthcock was issued the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,347,368 for a Microcomputing Device for Exchanging Data While Executing an Application.

    Harthcock alleges that MIPS Technologies and 90 other companies named as defendants have infringed the '368 Patent.

    MIPS Technologies Inc. is in the business of licensing its MIPS brand of 32-bit and 64-bit RISC IP cores and all of MIPS' RISC cores comprise an EJTAG port, the plaintiff's original complaint states.

    "MIPS' EJTAG port literally infringes all the elements of at least one claim of the '368 Patent, or in the alternative, MIPS' EJTAG port infringes the '369 Patent under the Doctrine of Equivalents," the complaint states.

    The other 90 defendants � including big-names like Sony, Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, Wal-Mart, Sears, Toshiba, Texas Instruments, Sharp, Microsoft, Pentax, Pioneer, Toys R Us, Hewlett Packard, Fuji, Canon and Cisco Systems � are licensees of MIPS' RISC cores and/or manufacturers, users or sellers of products that use or operate at least one MIPS RISC core or MIPS-compatible RISC core, the plaintiff alleges.

    As an example, the suit refers defendant Sony Corporation of America which uses the core in each of its PlayStation2 and Playstation Portable products that are sold by retailers including Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart and others.

    Further, the plaintiff claims that MIPS wrote and had published in the trade magazine EE Times a technical article describing the elements that make up EJTAG and how it works in the MIPS RISC core.

    According to Harthcock, the elements of MIPS EJTAG on-chip debug function described in the article read "literally every element of Claim 1 and Claim 2 of the '368 Patent."

    The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages sustained by the defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.

    Harthcock is representing himself in the proceedings.

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

    Case No. 2:07-cv-515-DF-CE

  • MHL Tek LLC vs. Nissan Motor Co. et al

    MHL Tek claims to have the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,663,496 for Tire Monitoring Via an Electromagnetic Path Including the Ground Plane of a Vehicle, issued Sept. 2, 1997; and U.S. Patent No. 5,741,966 for a Method and System for Monitoring a Parameter of a Vehicle Tire, issued April 21, 1993.

    The plaintiff alleges that 11 automakers, including Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Isuzu, Subaru and Volkswagen infringe the '496 and '966 Patents.

    "Upon information and belief, defendants will continue to infringe (the patents) unless enjoined by this court," the original complaint states.

    The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, an award of damages that defendants be ordered to account for and pay for the infringement, treble damages for the willful and deliberate infringement, interest, costs, fees, and other relief.

    Sam Baxter of McKool Smith PC in Marshall is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:07-cv-516-TJW

  • More News