Marshall Division

Sept. 24

  • Andrew Katrinecz et al vs. Trust International et al

    Plaintiffs David Byrd, of Round Rock, Texas, and Andrew Katrinecz, of Shalimar, Fla., claim to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,199,996 issued March 13, 2001, and No. 7,248,872 issued Oct. 23, 2007.

    The '996 and '872 Patents are for Low Power, Low Cost Illuminated Keyboards and Keypads.

    The plaintiffs allege that defendants Trust International BV, Lighthouse Brands LLC and D&H Distributing Co. infringe the '996 and '872 Patents.

    "Defendants' infringement … has injured plaintiffs, and plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for defendants' infringement, which in no even can be less than a reasonable royalty," the original complaint states.

    According to the complaint, the defendants' infringements have been willful and deliberate.

    Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and other relief.

    Michael Smith of Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips & Smith LLP in Marshall and attorneys from Taylor, Dunham & Burgess LLP in Austin are representing the plaintiffs.

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

    The plaintiffs filed a similar suit on Sept. 22 against I-RocksTechnology.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-363-TJW-CE

    Sept. 26

  • Andrew Katrinecz et al vs. Sunbeam Business Co. et al

    Plaintiffs David Byrd, of Round Rock, Texas, and Andrew Katrinecz, of Shalimar, Fla., claim to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,199,996 issued March 13, 2001, and No. 7,248,872 issued Oct. 23, 2007.

    The '996 and '872 Patents are for Low Power, Low Cost Illuminated Keyboards and Keypads.

    The plaintiffs allege that defendants Sunbeam Business Co. Ltd. and SunbeamTech Inc. infringe the '996 and '872 Patents.

    "Defendants' infringement … has injured plaintiffs, and plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for defendants' infringement, which in no even can be less than a reasonable royalty," the original complaint states.

    According to the complaint, the defendants' infringements have been willful and deliberate.

    Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and other relief.

    Michael Smith of Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips & Smith LLP in Marshall and attorneys from Taylor, Dunham & Burgess LLP in Austin are representing the plaintiffs.

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

    The plaintiffs filed similar suits on Sept. 22 against I-RocksTechnology and Sept. 24 against Trust International, Lighthouse Brands and D&H Distributing.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-365-TJW

    Sept. 29

  • T-Netix Inc. vs. Digital Solutions Inc. et al

    Plaintiff T-Netix, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, makes and sells communications systems for correctional institutions.

    T-Netix products and services for correctional facilities include specialized call-processing and billing, direct local and long-distance call processing, value-added services like pre-connection restrictions, digital recording, jail and inmate management systems, video booking and commissary services.

    T-Netix claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,484,507 issued Jan. 16, 1996, for an Integrated Commissary System.

    The plaintiff also claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,560,323 issued May 6, 2003, for a Computer-Based Method and Apparatus for Controlling, Monitoring, Recording and Reporting Telephone Access.

    According to the original complaint, T-Netix alleges that defendants Digital Solutions Inc. and ITI Inmate Telephone Inc. are infringing the '507 and '323 Patents through their Offender Communication System and Offender Management System.

    The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, compensation no less than reasonable royalty, treble damages for willful infringement and interest.

    Anthony J. Magee of Gruber Hurst Johansen & Hail LLP in Dallas is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-367-TJW

    Sept. 30

  • Aerielle Technologies Inc. et al vs. Siig Inc.

    Plaintiffs Aerielle Technologies Inc. and Aerielle Inc. are designers of consumer electronics whose products include wireless accessories for portable mobile audio devices such as I-Pod, MP3/4 players and related products.

    Aerielle claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,671,494 issued Dec. 30, 2003, and No. 5,771,441 issued June. 23, 1998, for a Small, Battery Operated RF Transmitter for Portable Audio Devices for Use with Headphones with RF Receiver.

    According to the complaint, Aerielle alleges that Siig is infringing one or more claims of the '494 and '441 Patents and that the infringement has been willful, deliberate and intentional.

    The plaintiff claims the infringement has caused it substantial damage and irreparable injury which will continue unless Siig is enjoined by the court.

    In addition to injunctive relief, Aerielle is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.

    Michael C. Smith of Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips & Smith LLP in Marshall is representing the plaintiff with attorneys from Taylor, Dunham & Burgess LLP in Austin.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-368-TJW

  • MedioStream Inc. vs. Microsoft Corp.

    According to the plaintiff's original complaint, MedioStream introduced products for multimedia computer applications including streaming video from the Internet and re-coded video onto disk media such as CDs and DVDs.

    "Between 1999 and 2002, MedioStream introduced products that created substantial excitement in the computer industry …," the complaint states. "MedioStream's early products received substantial media attention, followed by some of the world's leading computer hardware and software companies contacting MedioStream regarding its technology and the capabilities of its products."

    MedioStream claims it owns the rights to two patents that cover the recording technology – U.S. Patent No. 7,009,655 and U.S. Patent No. 7,283,172.

    The plaintiff alleges that defendant Microsoft has been and is infringing the '655 and '172 Patents, and that the infringement has been willful and deliberate.

    MedioStream is seeking a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    Elizabeth DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Longview is representing the plaintiff with attorneys from Goodwin Proctor LLP of California.

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

    Case No. 2:08-cv-369-TJW

    Oct. 1

  • Financial Systems Technology-Intellectual Property Ltd. et al vs. Oracle Corp.

    Australian companies Financial Systems Technology-Intellectual Property and Financial Systems Technology Pty. Ltd. claim to own two patents for expandable data processing systems and methods.

    The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 5,617,567 reissued as Reissue Patent No. Re. 40,526 on Sept. 30, 2008, and U.S. Patent No. 5,826,259 reissued as Reissue Patent No. Re. 40,520.

    FST alleges that defendant Oracle infringes the patents through it Oracle Database Management System. The plaintiff also alleges that the infringement was willful.

    The plaintiff claims it has been irreparably harmed by the infringement and the harm will continue unless the court restrains Oracle.

    "The hardships that would be imposed upon Oracle by an injunction are less than those faced by plaintiffs should an injunction not issue," the complaint states. "Furthermore, the public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction."

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

    Mike McKool Jr. of McKool Smith PC in Marshall is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

    Court assignment is pending.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-371

  • More News