Marshall Division

July 13

  • T-Netix Inc. vs. Public Communication Services Inc.

    According to the complaint, plaintiff T-Netix makes, uses and sells specialized call-processing and billing equipment and services for correctional institutions, jail and inmate management systems, video booking and other related goods and services, including commissary services.

    T-Netix claims to own the rights to three United States patents for a Computer-Based Method and Apparatus for Controlling, Monitoring, Recording and Reporting Telephone Access: U.S. Patent No. 6,560,323 issued May 6, 2003; U.S. Patent No. 5,655,013 issued Aug. 5, 1997; and U.S. No. 6,611,583 issued Aug. 26, 2003.

    Defendant PCS along with its wholly-owned Texas based subsidiary AGM Telecom Corp., makes and sells specialized telephone call-processing and billing equipment and services for correctional institutions in direct competition with T-Netix.

    T-Netix alleges PCS is infringing the '323, '013 and '582 Patents through its Inmate Telephone System and Inmate Telephone Services.

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

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

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

    Case No. 2:09-cv-215-TJW

    Sherman Division

    July 10

  • Dress to Chill LLC vs. Small Axe Corp.

    Plaintiff Dress to Chill seeks a declaratory judgment against defendant Small Axe Corp. that U.S. Patent No. 6,578,809 which is assigned to Axe is at a minimum either invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by plaintiff.

    Chill is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

    According to the complaint, the plaintiff is in the business of selling various novelty items including bottle and can beverage holders commonly known as "koozies."

    Chill has been in business in Collin County since Aug. 11, 2004, and began selling its Coaster Pants products no later than November 2004.

    According to the complaint, Chill's first contact with Axe or any of its principals occurred at least in early 2009 when Peter Gluck contacted Chill and requested a copy of Chill's product catalog. Gluck is the attorney for Axe and that '809 Patent was assigned to Gluck before it was assigned to Axe.

    "When Mr. Gluck contacted Plaintiff Chill in late 2008, Mr. Gluck did not mention any potential patent issues, the '809 Patent, defendant Axe, or any other matters indicating an objection to any of Plaintiff Chill's products," the complaint states. "Instead, Mr. Gluck was posing as a potential purchaser of Plaintiff Chill's products."

    On May 26, Axe through its attorney contacted Chill and communicated that Axe owns the '809 Patent and first alleged that Chill's beverage coaster product marketed using the registered mark Coaster Pants infringes the '809 Patent.

    "Mr. Gluck demanded that Plaintiff stop making and selling its Coaster Pants Products," the complaint states. "Prior to this communication, Plaintiff Chill was unaware of the '809 Patent, Defendant Axe and/or Defendant Axe's products."

    Between July 2 and July 9, Chill and Axe corresponded through e-mail regarding the '809 Patent and engaged in settlement negotiations. Defendant Axe demanded among other things that Chill admit to infringement of the '809 Patent. As a consequence settlement negotiations between Chill and Axe came to an impasse.

    Chill anticipates that it will be sued by Axe over the patent at issue.

    "Given Axe's statements and repeated demands for compensation and implied threats of litigation, that is the only conclusion that can be drawn," the suit states.

    Due to Axe's repeated demands for compensation and implied threats of litigation to enforce its patent rights, Chill is seeking a declaratory judgment is needed to determine the rights of the parties.

    In addition, the plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

    Kelly Kumchak of Klemchuck Kubasta LLP in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

    Case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Don Bush.

    Case No. 4:09-cv-324-DDB

    Texarkana Division

    July 9

  • 820 Technologies LLC vs. Chexar Networks Inc.

    Plaintiff 820 Technologies, doing business as Valid Systems, is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Worth.

    Valid claims it has worked in the check cashing sector since 1987 and delivered the industry's first successful automated product.

    It claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,529,710 issued May 5 for a Monitoring Transactions By Non-Account Holder.

    According to the complaint, defendant Chexar is a direct competitor of Valid, and facilitates check processing transactions over a global computer network for others by providing user authentication or fraud detection services.

    Chexar makes, uses, offers to sell or import certain check verification and/or check cashing services for non-depositors under the name "Smartscore."

    "Chexar has never been awarded a United States Patent, for any service or technology, including 'Smartscore,'" the complaint states.

    Chexar is infringing the '710 Patent, the plaintiff claims, and the infringement has been willful and deliberate.

    Valid is seeking compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, costs and other relief deemed proper.

    James Fussell III of Fish & Richardson in Washington, D.C., is representing the plaintiff.

    Court assignment is pending.

    Case No. 5:09-cv-102

    Tyler Division

    July 8

  • Aloft Media LLC vs. Yahoo! Inc. and Google Inc.

    Plaintiff Aloft Media is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview.

    Aloft Media claims it is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,529,795 issued May 5 for a Message Board Aggregator.

    Aloft alleges that Yahoo! and Google are infringing the '795 Patent.

    Yahoo!'s infringements include, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling computer software products, including without limitation the MyYahoo! Web site and application.

    Google's infringements include, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling computer software products, including without limitation the iGoogle Web site and application.

    As a result of Defendants' infringement of the '795 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.

    Eric Albritton of Albritton Law Firm in Longview is representing the plaintiff.

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

    6:09-cv-291-LED

  • Celltrace LLC vs. AT&T Inc. et al

    Plaintiff Celltrace LLC is a Texas limited liability company with principal places of business in Newport Beach, Calif., and Frisco, Texas.

    Celltrace claims to own the rights to two United States patents for telecommunications systems: U.S. Patent No. 6,011,976 issued Jan. 4, 2000; and U.S. Patent No. 7,551,933 issued June 23.

    The plaintiff alleges that defendants AT&T, AT&T Mobility formerly known as Cingular Wireless, T-Mobile, Alltel, ETex Telephone, MetroPCS, Sprint Nextel, Mid-Atlantic, Nextel, Sprint and Verizon are infringing the '976 and '933 Patents.

    According to the suit, alleged acts of infringement include, but are not limited to, ownership, operation, use and provision of cellular networks for communicating with cellular telephones via messaging in an infringing manner.

    Celltrace claims it has been damaged as a result of defendants' infringing conduct and is thus entitled to adequate compensation no less than a reasonable royalty.

    The plaintiff also seeks interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other just and proper relief.

    Eric Albritton of Albritton Law Firm in Longview and attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Casto PC in Fort Worth, The Ware Firm in Dallas, and T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

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

    6:09-cv-294-LED

    July 14

  • Aloft Media LLC vs. SAP AG et al

    Plaintiff Aloft Media is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview.

    Aloft claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 6,832,226 issued Dec. 14, 2004, for a Method of Providing Data Dictionary-Driven Web-based Database Applications.

    The plaintiff alleges that defendants SAP AG, SAP America Inc., Oracle Corp., Oracle USA Inc., Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. are infringing the '226 Patent.

    Some of the defendants' infringing products named in the suit include SAP Dynpro computer software, Oracle Application Express software, Google Base and Yahoo! Store/

    "As a result of the Defendants' infringement of the '226 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 complaint states.

    Aloft is seeking damages, costs, expenses, interest and other relief to which it may be entitled.

    Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm in Longview is representing Aloft.

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

    Case No. 6:09-cv-303-LED

  • Aloft Media vs. Oracle Corp. et al

    Plaintiff Aloft Media is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview.

    It claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,499,898 issued March 3 for a Decision-Making System, Method and Computer Program Product.

    Aloft alleges that defendants Oracle Corp., Oracle USA Inc., Yahoo! Inc., Google Inc., Fair Isaac Corp., Fidelity Investments LLC, ScotTrade Inc., TD Ameritrade Inc., Halliburton Co., E-Trade Securities LLC and Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. are infringing the '898 Patent.

    Allegedly infringing products named in the suit include Oracle Business Intelligence, Yahoo Search Marketing, Google Web Optimizer, Fair Isaac FICO Decision Optimizer, Fidelity Wealth Lab Pro, TD Ameritrade Strategy Desk, Halliburton Decision Management System and E-Trade Strategy Scanner.

    "As a result of the Defendants' infringement of the '898 patent, Aloft Media has suffered monetary damages adequate to compensate it for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty," the suit states.

    Aloft is seeking damages, costs, expenses, interest and other relief to which it may be entitled.

    Eric Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm in Longview is representing Aloft.

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

    Case No. 6:09-cv-304-LED

  • More News