Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

Jan. 17

  • Alexsam Inc. vs. Shell Oil Co. et al

    Texas-based Alexsam brings a complaint for patent infringement against Shell Oil Co., Pier 1 Imports Inc. and Metromedia Steakhouses Co. LP. At issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,000,608 and 6,189,787 for a Multifunction Card System.

    Alexsam alleges that the defendant companies infringe on the '608 and '787 Patents by making, using or selling gift cards which in combination with other devices are covered by the claims of the patents.

    "As a consequence of the infringement complained herein, Alexsam has been irreparably damaged to an extent not yet determined and will continue to be irreparably damaged by such acts in the future unless the defendants are enjoined by this court from committing further acts of infringement," the complaint states.

    Alexsam is asking that each defendant account and pay all damages caused by the infringement. The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, interest, costs and other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

    The plaintiff is represented by Randy McClanahan of McClanahan & Clearman LLP in Houston and attorneys from firms in Bellaire, Marshall and Tyler.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-015-TJW-CE

    Jan. 22

  • Minverva Industries Inc. vs. Apple Inc. et al

    Minerva Industries claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,321,783 for a Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device issued Jan. 22 from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/719,363.

    According to the original complaint, Minerva alleges Apple is infringing on the '783 Patent by making and selling the iPhone, which is covered by one or more claims of the patent. The plaintiff alleges that Apple has had actual notice of the patent since at least March 30, 2007.

    Defendant AtlanticRT allegedly has infringed the '783 Patent by making, using or selling mobile entertainment and communication devices including the Thuraya SG-2520.

    The complaint claims that after receiving notice of the '363 application, Apple waited until one week before the patent was to issue before sending prior art that Apple contended rendered the claims of the '363 Application invalid. Minerva then withdrew the '363 Application from issuance and requested continued examination by the Patent Office.

    The Patent Office then re-examined the claims of the '363 Application and determined that "the claims of the '363 Application were patentable over the Apple Prior Art (and all other prior art that had been submitted)" and issued a notice of allowance.

    Minerva claims that Apple "monitored the progress of the '363 Application" during the reexamination and "became aware on or about Nov. 20, 2007, that the Patent Office rejected its contention."

    "As a result of these defendants' infringement of the '783 Patent, Minerva has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined," the complaint states.

    Minerva is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, costs, expenses, interest and attorney fees. The plaintiff is also asking for enhanced damages "resulting from the knowing, deliberate and willful nature of defendants' prohibited conduct."

    Otis Carroll of Ireland,Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler is attorney-in-charge for the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-019-TJW

  • Minerva Industries Inc. vs. Research In Motion Corp. et al

    Minerva asserts that it is owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,783 for a Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device. The '783 Patent was issued on Jan. 22 from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/719/363.

    According to the original complaint, the '363 Application was a Continuation Application of the application that issued U.S. Patent No. 6,681,120 on Jan. 20, 2004, also titled Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device.

    Minerva earlier filed litigation asserting infringement of the '120 Patent in the Eastern District, Case No. 2:07-cv-229, currently pending before U.S. District Judge T. John Ward. Also currently pending is Case No. 2:07-cv-230 before U.S. District Judge David Folsom. Minerva intends to seek to consolidate the cases.

    The original complaint claims that defendants Research In Motion and Cricket Communications are infringing the '783 Patent by making, using or selling mobile entertainment and communication devices.

    Minerva alleges that RIM had actual notice of the '363 Application which issued the '783 Patent since Oct. 18, 2006.

    The plaintiff claims it has suffered "monetary damages in an amount not yet determined" as a result of the infringements and will be irreparably harmed unless the defendants are enjoined by the court.

    Minerva is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, costs, expenses and interest as well as enhanced damages for the deliberate and willful nature of the defendants.

    Melvin (Trip) R. Wilcox III of Smead, Anderson & Dunn in Longview is attorney-in-charge for the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-020-TJW

  • Minerva Industries Inc. vs. Motorola Inc. et al

    In this suit, Minerva Industries has named 29 defendants including Motorola, Nokia, Alltel, AT&T, Cellular One, Sprint, Nextel, Verizon, T-Mobile, Kyocera, LG, Palm, Sanyo, Sony and Samsung alleging patent infringement.

    The subject of the complaint is again U.S. Patent No. 7,321,783 for a Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device issued Jan. 22 from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/719,363. The '363 Application was a Continuation Application of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,681,120 on Jan. 20, 2004, also titled Mobile Entertainment and Communication Device.

    Minerva will seek to consolidate this action with Case No. 2:07-cv-229 pending before U.S. District Judge T. John Ward and Case No. 2:07-cv-230 pending before U.S. Judge David Folsom.

    The complaint alleges that defendants are infringing the '783 Patent by making, using or selling mobile entertainment and communication devices.

    Minerva alleges that many of the defendants had actual notice of the '363 Application which issued as the '783 Patent, some since at least Oct. 18, 2006, and others since at least March 23, 2007. The complaint alleges that Sanyo had actual notice of the application and patent as early as Nov. 4, 2004.

    Minerva claims the infringements have been willful and have caused monetary damages in an amount not yet determined.

    The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from infringement, damages, costs, expenses, fees and interest. Minerva is also seeking enhanced damages for the willful and deliberate nature of the defendants' prohibited conduct.

    Otis Carroll of Ireland Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler is attorney-in-charge for the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-021-TJW-CE

  • More News