Marshall Division, Eastern District of Texas

Aug. 13

  • GraphOn Corp. vs. Google Inc.

    Plaintiff GraphOn claims it owns the rights to four patents relating to automated on-line information service and pay-for-service Web sites.

    The patents in suit are:
    U.S. Patent No. 6,324,538 issued Nov. 27, 2001, for an Automated On-Line Information Service and Directory, Particularly for the World Wide Web
    U.S. Patent No. 6,850,940 issued Feb. 1, 2005, for an Automated On-Line Information Service and Directory, Particularly for the World Wide Web
    U.S. Patent No. 7,028,034 issued April 11, 2006, for a Method and Apparatus for Providing a Dynamically-Updating Pay-For-Service Web Site
    U.S. Patent No. 7,269,591 issued Sept. 11, 2007, for a Method and Apparatus for Providing a Pay-For-Service Web Site

    The plaintiff claims each of the patents-in-suit were assigned to GraphOn by inventors Ralph E. Wesinger Jr. and Christopher D. Coley.

    According to the plaintiff, defendant Google infringes the GraphOn patents through google.com, an online service which allows its users to post searchable entries; AdWords, which allows customers to post searchable advertisements; blogger.com, which allows users to post searchable blogs; and YouTube, which allows users to post searchable videos.

    "Google's infringement of GraphOn's exclusive rights under the patents-in-suit will continue to damage GraphOn's business, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy of law unless enjoined by this court," the original complaint states.

    GraphOn is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, costs, interest and other disbursements as the court may deem appropriate.

    Robert C. Bunt of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC in Tyler is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-317-TJW

  • Medtronic Vascular Inc. et al vs. Boston Scientific Corp. et al

    According to the original complaint, on Nov. 7, 1995, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 5,464,650 for an Intervascular Stent and Method to Eric Berg, Ronald Tuch, Michael Dror and Rodney Wolff.

    The plaintiff Medtronic Vascular, Medtronic USA, Medtronic Inc. and Medtronic Vascular Galway Ltd. claim to be the exclusive licensees of the '650 Patent.

    Medtronic alleges that defendants Boston Scientific Corp., Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Vascular Inc. and Abbott Cardiovascular Systems Inc. infringe the '650 Patent by making, using or selling drug eluting stent products.

    The plaintiffs also allege that defendants received actual or constructive notice that they are infringing the '650 Patent.

    Medtronic is seeking actual damages, enhanced damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and compulsory future royalties.

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

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-318-TJW

    Aug. 15

  • Reedhycalog UK Ltd. et al vs. Diamond Innovations

    Plaintiff Reedhycalog UK Ltd. is a United Kingdom corporation with its principal place of business in Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, England. Plaintiff Reedhycalog LP is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Houston.

    According the plaintiffs' original complaint, defendant Diamond Innovations has manufactured partially leached polycrystalline diamond compact cutters and inserts and sold them to various drill bit manufacturers.

    The DI products allegedly infringe on Reedhycalog patents.

    The patents-in-suit are:
    U.S. Patent No. 6,861,098 issued March 1, 2005
    U.S. Patent No. 6,861,137 issued March 1, 2005
    U.S. Patent No. 6,878,447 issued April 12, 2005
    U.S. Patent No. 6,601,662 issued Aug. 5, 2003
    U.S. Patent No. 6,544,308 issued April 8, 2003
    U.S. Patent No. 6,562,462 issued May 13, 2003
    U.S. Patent No. 6,585,064 issued July 1, 2003
    U.S. Patent No. 6,589,640 issued July 8, 2003
    U.S. Patent No. 6,592,985 issued July 15, 2003
    U.S. Patent No. 6,739,214 issued May 25, 2004
    U.S. Patent No. 6,749,033 issued June 15, 2004
    U.S. Patent No. 6,797,326 issued Sept. 28, 2004

    Plaintiffs are seeking an accounting of all damages, a permanent injunction against DI, actual and enhanced damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    Danny L. Williams of Williams, Morgan & Amerson PC in Houston is lead attorney for the plaintiffs, with T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-325-LED

    Tyler Division, Eastern District of Texas

    Aug. 18

  • Gary Odom vs. Microsoft Corp.

    Oregon resident Gary Odom claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,363,592 B1 issued April 22, 2008, for an invention titled Tool Group Manipulations.

    Odom claims Microsoft infringes the '592 Patent by making and selling Microsoft Office 2007.

    The plaintiff claims the alleged infringement entitles Odom to recover damages in an amount subject to proof at trial.

    Odom is seeking a permanent injunction against Microsoft, damages no less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    S. Calvin Capshaw III of Capshaw DeRieux in Longview and attorneys from Susman Godfrey LLP in Houston and Seattle are representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 6:08-cv-331-LED

  • More News