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

By Marilyn Tennissen | Apr 9, 2008

Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

April 8

  • Aloft Media LLC vs. Brookstone Inc. et al

    Plaintiff Aloft Media is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview. Aloft claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,300,871 issued Oct. 9, 2001, for a Multi-Action RF Thermometer and Alarm System.

    The company filed a patent infringement suit against defendants Brookstone, Honeywell, Thermo Fisher Scientific dba Davis Instruments, Cole-Parmer Instrument Co., Lacrosse Technology, Chaney Instruments, Rainwise, Columbia Weather Systems, Peet Bros. Co. and Tandd US.

    Aloft alleges that the defendants infringed the '871 Patent by making, using or selling multi-station weather monitoring products.

    "As a result of the Defendants' infringement of the '871 Patent, Aloft Media has suffered monetary damages that are adequate to compensate it for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty," the original complaint states.

    The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, damages, costs, interest, attorneys' fees and other relief to which it may be entitled.

    Eric Albritton, T. John Ward Jr. and Scott Stevens of Longview and Danny Williams of Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-153-DF-CE

    April 9

  • Philip Jackson vs. Intel Corp.

    Illinois resident Philip Jackson claims he is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 4,596,900 issued Jan. 24, 1986, for a Phone-Line-Linked, Tone Operated Control Device.

    According to the original complaint, a Reexamination Certificate was issued to Jackson on Oct. 10, 1995, which amended the '900 Patent in certain respects.

    Jackson alleges that Intel Corp. has been and is still infringing the '900 Patent. The complaint names Intel's NetMerge Call Processing Software, NetMerge Enhanced Software Development Kit, CT Connect Call Control Server, Telcom Software, Envox CT Connect, Excele Tel Program and Intel Net Structure Host Media Processing Software for Windows among infringing products.

    The plaintiff claims the infringement of the '900 Patent has caused him injury and entitles him to recover damages not less than a reasonable royalty.

    Jackson is seeking a full accounting from Intel of all damages caused by the infringement. He is also asking for attorneys' fees, costs, interest and other just and proper relief.

    Edward Goldstein of Goldstein, Faucett & Prebeg LLP in Houston and attorneys from Sommers Schwartz PC in Southfield, Mich., are representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-154-TJW

    Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas

    April 8

  • Software Tree LLC vs. Oracle Corp.

    Plaintiff Software Tree claims it is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,163,776 issued Dec. 19, 2000, for a System and Method for Exchanging Data and Commands Between an Object Oriented System and Relational System.

    The original complaint states the '776 Patent was subject to a reexamination by the U.S. Patent Office which confirmed the patentability of all claims and amended some claims. The reexamination concluded on April 8, 2008.

    Software Tree claims that Oracle has infringed the '776 Patent through products including the Oracle TopLink.

    "Defendant has actual knowledge of the '776 Patent, and actual knowledge that the Oracle product known as Oracle TopLink product, and all other Oracle products that include TopLink, infringe the '776 Patent," the original complaint states.

    The plaintiff claims Oracle's knowledge is evidenced by correspondence dating back to early 2004 between Oracle and the inventor of the '776 Patent, who is also the president and CEO of Software Tree.

    "Instead of properly taking a license to the '776 Patent, Oracle engaged in a series of unsuccessful attempts to invalidate the '776 Patent through numerous meritless filings of ex-parte reexamination of the '776 Patent," the complaint states. "Despite its actual knowledge of the '776 Patent and its infringement of same, Oracle has continued to engage in its infringing conduct without a license."

    As a result of Oracle's alleged acts of infringement, Software Tree claims it has and will continue to sustain substantial damages in an amount not presently known.

    Software Tree is seeking injunctive relief, damages, lost profits, expenses, costs, attorneys' fees, treble damages, interest and other just and proper relief.

    Jeffrey Bragalone of Shore Chan Bragalone LLP in Dallas is attorney in charge for the plaintiff.

    Court assignment is pending.

    Case No. 6:08-cv-126

  • Want to get notified whenever we write about Intel ?

    Sign-up Next time we write about Intel, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

    Organizations in this Story


    More News

    The Record Network