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

By Marilyn Tennissen | May 8, 2008

Sherman Division, Eastern District of Texas

April 28

  • SureFire LLC vs. Pentagon Scientific Corp. dba PentagonLight

    Plaintiff SureFire is complaining of patent infringement and false advertising under the federal Latham Act.

    According the plaintiff's original complaint, SureFire has been engaged in the manufacture and distribution of flashlights and related products for more than 20 years. The company states that it employs more than 500 people at its facilities in and around Fountain Valley, Calif., where it manufactures key components and assembles its products.

    SureFire claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,222,138 for an invention called a Battery Operated Appliance, Flashlight and Switching Systems Technical Field which was issued April 24, 2001. A reissue of the '138 Patent was released on March 4, 2008, as U.S. Patent No. RE40,125.

    "SureFire has been at all times, and still is, the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to both the '138 and '125 Patents," the plaintiff claims. "PentagonLight markets and sells flashlight and related products in direct competition with SureFire."

    In addition, the plaintiff alleges that PentagonLight has published numerous advertisements including either express or implied assertions that its flashlights are "Made in U.S.A."

    "On information and belief, such assertions are false and misleading," the complaint states.

    SureFire claims it has suffered substantial damages by PentagonLight's acts of patent infringement, and claims the infringement was willful and deliberate in disregard of SureFire's rights.

    The plaintiff also claims that PentagonLight's false and misleading statements in its commercial advertising and promotions misrepresent the origin of its goods and either deceive or have the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of potential customers.

    SureFire is seeking injunctive relief, adequate compensation, treble damages, interest and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff is also asking that PentagonLight be directed to withdraw from distribution all infringing products and false advertisements and that all materials be impounded or destroyed.

    Clyde Siebman of Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips & Smith LLP in Sherman is representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell.

    Case No. 4:08-cv-146-RAS

    Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas

    April 24

  • Tristar Products vs. E. Mishon & Sons Inc. et al

    Plaintiff Tristar claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,577,987 for an invention called an Abdominal Exerciser Device issued Nov. 26, 1996.

    Tristar alleges that defendant EMSON has infringed the '987 Patent through a product called the "Ab Rocket," and that E. Mishon & Sons Inc. has authorized or contributed to EMSON's infringing activities.

    The plaintiff claims that the defendants' infringing activities are without consent, authority or license of Tristar.

    "Defendants' infringement of the '987 Patent will continue to damage Tristar causing irreparable damage for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this court," the plaintiff's original complaint states.

    The plaintiff also alleges that the infringement has been willful and deliberate, entitling it to recover increased damages.

    Tristar is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, enhanced damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.

    Michael E. Jones of Potter Mitton in Tyler and attorneys from Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP in Los Angeles are representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 6:08-cv-162-LED

    April 29

  • Invitrogen Corp. et al vs. Evident Technologies Inc. et al

    Plaintiffs Invitrogen Corp., Quantum Dot Corp., Molecular Probes Inc. and Regents of the University of California have filed a patent infringement suit against defendants Evident Technologies Inc. and Does 1 through 5.

    The complaint deals with U.S. Patent Nos. 6,423,551; 6.699,723; and 6,927,069 issued to the University of California. Invitrogen, QDC and Molecular Probes claim to be exclusive licensees of the patents.

    Plaintiffs allege that defendant Evident has infringed the patents, and claim that the true names and capacities of defendants Doe 1, Doe 2, Doe 3, Doe 4 and Doe 5 are unknown.

    "Plaintiffs therefore sue the Doe Defendants by such fictitious names," the original complaint states. "Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the Doe Defendants is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings alleged, and that each individually or as a group caused injuries and damages proximately thereby."

    Infringing products alleged by the plaintiffs are defendants' EviTag and EviFluor products.

    Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, compensation no less than reasonable royalty, enhanced damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and other proper relief. In addition, the plaintiffs are asking that defendants be ordered to deliver all infringing products for destruction and that defendants be required to account for all gains, profits and unjust enrichment derived from the infringement.

    Otis Carroll of Ireland, Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler and attorneys from Vinson & Elkins LLP in Houston and Parson, Behle & Latimer in Salt Lake City, Utah, are representing the plaintiffs.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 6:08-cv-163-LED

    April 30

  • Colorquick LLC vs. Eastman Kodak Co.

    Plaintiff Colorquick claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,801,333 issued Oct. 5, 2004. The original complaint states that the patent describes an automated system for comparing a job quote for a print job with actual production data for a print job.

    The complaint alleges that Eastman Kodak infringes the '333 Patent through its production and use of the Kodak Unified Workflow Solutions products.

    In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Kodak had knowledge of the '333 Patent "but has recklessly engaged in its infringing conduct nonetheless," making the infringement willful and deliberate.

    Colorquick claims that it has and will continue to sustain substantial damages in an amount not presently known.

    "Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against these acts of patent infringement," the original complaint states. "Unless Defendant is permanently enjoined from its unlawful and willful infringement of the '333 Patent, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm."

    Colorquick is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, expenses, costs, attorneys' fees, interest and other just and proper relief.

    Michael W. Shore of Shore Chan & Bragalone LLP in Dallas is attorney-in-charge for the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Case No. 6:08-cv-165-LED

  • More News

    The Record Network