Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

June 30

  • Cardio Access LLC vs. Boston Scientific Corp. et al

    Plaintiff Cardio Access is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Newport Beach, Calif., and a place of business in Frisco, Texas.

    Cardio Access claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,254,097 for a Combined Percutaneous Cardiopulmonary Bypass and Intra-Aortic Balloon Access Cannula. The patent was issued Oct. 19, 1993.

    As it pertains to this lawsuit, the '097 Patent relates to medical devices know as cannulae – the claimed cannulae having multiple access port legs, having at least one hemostatic valve and which are adapted for the percutaneous insertion of various catheters into the bodies of patients.

    Cardio Access alleges that defendants Boston Scientific Corp., Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Cordis Corp., Ethicon Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic Inc., Medtronic USA Inc., Medtronic Vascular Inc., Kyphon Inc., Edwards LifeSciences Corp. and Edwards LifeSciences LLC infringe the '097 Patent through the sales and distribution of various medical devices and services relating to the devices.

    "Cardio Access has been damaged as a result of defendants' infringing conduct," the complaint states. "Defendants are, thus, liable to Cardio Access in an amount that adequately compensates it for their infringements, which by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this court…"

    In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware of the '097 Patent, had knowledge of their infringing activities and nevertheless continued the infringing activities. Because of the alleged willful nature of the infringement, Cardio Access is seeking treble damages.

    The plaintiff is also seeking attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.

    Edward R. Nelson III of Nelson, Bumgardner Casto PC in Fort Worth is attorney-in-charge for the plaintiff. Eric Albritton and T. John Ward Jr. of Longview are also representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Folsom.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-260-DF

    July 1

  • Paice LLC vs. Toyota Motor Corp.

    Paice claims it is the owner of all rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,392,871 for Hybrid Vehicles issued July 1, 2008.

    According to the plaintiff's complaint, defendants Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor North America Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. are directly infringing the '871 Patent, specifically but not limited to the Highlander hybrid SUV and Lexus RX400h hybrid SUV.

    The suit also alleges that Toyota infringes the '871 Patent by distributing manuals that teach third parties to operate the hybrid vehicles in a manner that directly infringes the patent.

    Paice claims that Toyota had actual knowledge of the '871 Patent and that their infringement is willful.

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

    Samuel Baxter of McKool Smith PC in Marshall is representing the plaintiff. Attorneys from Fish & Richardson PC in Washington, D.C., and Boston, Mass., are of counsel.

    Court assignment is pending.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-261

    Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas

    June 26

  • J2 Global Communications Inc. vs. Captaris Inc.
  • J2 Global Communications Inc. vs. Easylink Services International Corp.
  • J2 Global Communications Inc. vs. Comodo Group Ltd.

    Plaintiff J2 Global has filed three patent infringement suits against three different defendants.

    In each of the suits, J2 claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,597,688 for Scalable Architecture for Transmission of Messages over a Network. The '688 Patent was issued on July 22, 2003, to Anand Narasimhan, Yaacov Shemesh and Amit Kumar and was assigned to J2.

    In addition, the suit names U.S. Patent No. 7,020,132, also for Scalable Architecture for Transmission of Messages over a Network. The '132 Patent was issued to Narasmhan, Shemesh and Kumar on March 28, 2006.

    In the suit against Captaris, J2 alleges that the defendant infringes the patents by making, using or selling products including RightFax software and servers.

    The second suit filed on June 26 alleges that EasyLink infringes the '688 and '132 Patents through its RapidFax e-mail to fax product, EasyLink Production Messaging and EasyLink Desktop Messaging services.

    On June 30, a suit was filed by J2 naming Comodo Group as defendant. Comodo's infringing products include the TrustFax Internet fax service.

    In each suit, J2 is seeking injunctive relief, an accounting of all profits derived from the alleged infringement, compensatory damages, interest and other just and proper relief.

    Nicholas Patton and Kurt Truelove of Texarkana, Texas, are representing the plaintiff.

    The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

    Captaris Case No. 6:08-cv-262-LED
    EasyLink Case No. 6:08-cv-263-LED
    Comodo Case No. 6:08-cv-275-LED

  • Saxon Innovations Inc. vs. Apple Inc. et al

    Plaintiff Saxon Innovations, a Texas corporation located in Tyler, is in the business of licensing technology related to communications, computers and other electronic products.

    Saxon claims to hold the rights to four patents named in the suit:

    -U.S. Patent No. 5,592,555 issued Jan. 7, 1997, for Wireless Communications Privacy Method and System
    -U.S. Patent No. 5,502,689 issued March 26, 1996, for Clock Generator Capable of Shut-Down Mode and Clock Generation Method
    -U.S. Patent No. 5,530,597 issued June 25, 1996, for Apparatus and Method for Disabling Interrupt Masks in Processors of the Like
    -U.S. Patent No. 5,235,635 issued Aug. 10, 1993, for Keypad Monitor with Keypad Activity-Based Activation

    The complaint alleges that defendants Apple, Gateway, Acer, Hewlett-Packard and Dell have infringed some or all of the patents-in-suit:

    -Each of the defendants has infringed the '555 and the '689 Patent
    -Apple, Dell and HP have infringed the '597 Patent
    -HP has infringed the '635 Patent

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

    Stephen D. Susman of Susman Godfrey LLP in Houston is representing the plaintiff, along with Johnny Ward of Ward &Smith in Longview and attorneys from Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP in Houston.

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

    Case No. 6:08-cv-265-LED

    June 27

  • Fenner Investments Ltd. vs. Hewlett-Packard Company and Dell Inc.

    Plaintiff Fenner Investments is a Texas limited partnership based in Richardson wholly owned by members of the Fenner family.

    Fenner claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,145,906 for a Packet Switching Node issued Dec. 5, 2006. Fenner also claims to hold the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,842,224 issued Nov. 24, 1998, for a Method and Apparatus for Source Filtering Data Packets Between Networks of Differing Media.

    Peter R. Fenner is the sole inventor of the '906 and '224 Patents assigned to Fenner Investments.

    The patents relates to Mr. Fenner's work in satisfying the 1989 SBIR Program Topic Number N89-037 for the U.S. Navy. The investigation was disclosed to the Navy in a submission called "An addressing technique for U.S. Navy traffic in a multimedia environment."

    The original complaint alleges that Hewlett-Packard has in the past and continues to infringe the '906 and '224 Patents through products including the HP Ethernet 5300 Family Switches. Dell's products, including but not limited to the Dell Managed Ethernet Switches such as the 35XX Family infringe the '906 and '224 Patents.

    "Each of defendants' acts of infringement has caused damage to Fenner, and Fenner is entitled to recover from each defendant the damages sustained by Fenner as a result of their individual wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial," the original complaint states.

    Fenner is seeking injunctive relief, an accounting of all damages, actual damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    Jim L. Flegle and attorneys from Loewinsohn Flegle Deary LLP of Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 6:08-cv-273-LED

    July 1

  • Cheetah Omni LLC vs. Samsung Electronics USA et al

    Plaintiff Cheetah Omni is a Texas limited liability company within the Eastern District of Texas.

    Cheetah Omni claims it holds the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,116,862 for an Apparatus and Method for Providing Gain Equalization issued Oct. 3, 2006 to inventors Mohammed M. Islam and Amos Kuditcher.

    It also claims the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,339,714 for a Variable Blazed Grating Based Signal Processing issued March 4, 2008, to inventor Mohammed M. Islam.

    Plaintiff Cheetah Omni is the owner by assignment of the '862 and '714 Patents.

    The complaint alleges that defendants Samsung Electronics USA and Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America Inc. infringe the '862 and '714 Patents by making, using or selling certain rear projection DLP televisions.

    Cheetah Omni is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and other just and equitable relief.

    T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview and Joe Kendall of Provost Umphrey LLP in Beaumont are representing the plaintiff. Attorneys from Brooks Kushman PC in Southfield, Mich., are of counsel.

    Court assignment is pending.

    Case No. 6:08-cv-279

  • More News