Marshall Division

Jan. 14

  • Aksenta Paneele + Profile GmbH et al vs. Brown-West LLC et al

    Plaintiffs Akzenta Paneele + Profile GmbH and W. Classen GmbH & Co. KG, both based in Germany, claim to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,451,578. The '578 Patent was issued for a Panel and Fastening System.

    According to the complaint, plaintiffs are among "the leading manufacturers, distributors and sellers of laminate flooring in the world." Plaintiffs' products include laminate-flooring products sold under the trade name Megaloc.

    "The introduction of the Megaloc product revolutionized the laminate-flooring industry because the Megaloc patented system provided end users with a glue-free and easy-to-use system for laying laminate flooring," the suit states. "As a result, Megaloc has enjoyed a considerable degree of commercial success."

    The plaintiffs allege defendants Brown-West LLC doing business as Carpet One Floor & Home, Shaw Industries Group Inc. and Swedish company Valinge Innovation AB, formerly known as Valinge Aluminum AB are infringing the '578 Patent by making, using or selling laminate-flooring products sold under the trade name VersaLock AG.

    Plaintiffs also seek relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act that Valinge's U.S. Patent No. 7,634,884 is invalid. The '884 Patent was issued Dec. 22, 2009, for a Mechanical Locking System for Panels and Method of Installing Same.

    According to the complaint, on Dec. 29, 2009, Valinge posted a news article on its Web site titled "Information regarding Classen patents related to fold down locking systems."

    The news article stated that Valinge had been issued a patent that specifically protects a version of Megaloc and had recently obtained the '884 Patent to protect a locking system with a snap tab on the fold panel similar to a Megaloc system.

    According to the complaint, the article stated that "none of the Valinge fold down systems infringes Classen patents" and "Classen has not even been able to get a patent that protects their Megaloc."

    It says that "Valinge is determined to use its comprehensive patent portfolio against all other patent holders that use their patents against Valinge or its licensees in an unjustified way."

    Plaintiffs seek relief against Valinge for false advertising under the Lanham Act and relief for business disparagement, tortious interference with prospective business relations, defamation and unfair competition.

    The plaintiffs claim Valinge derives an unfair competitive advantage by giving its laminate-flooring locking system a degree of success, prominence and credibility that it does not have. The statements in the Valinge news article deceive a substantial segment of customers of laminate-flooring products.

    According to the complaint, Vilange intentionally and willfully made these false or misleading representations.

    The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages for willful infringement, an injunction against defendants to enjoin them from further infringement and false advertisement, costs, interest, expenses and other relief the court may deem appropriate.

    Richard A. Sayles of Sayles Werbner in Dallas and attorneys from Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP in New York, N.Y., are representing the plaintiffs.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham for pre-trial proceedings.

    Case No. 2:10-cv-00016-TJW-CE

    Jan. 18

  • T-Netix Inc. et al vs. Legacy Long Distance International Inc. et al

    Plaintiffs T-Netix Inc. and Evercom Systems Inc. are Delaware corporations with principal places of business in Dallas.

    According to the complaint, plaintiffs make, use and sell specialized call-processing and billing equipment and services for correctional institutions, direct local and long distance call processing for correctional facilities, value-added telecommunication services such as pre-connection restrictions, digital recording, jail and inmate management systems, video booking and other related goods and services including commissary services.

    Plaintiffs are claiming to be the owner by assignment of six patents for the telecommunications products and services.

    The patents-in-suit are:

  • 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. T-Netix is the assignee.

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,655,013 issued Aug. 5, 1997, for a Computer-Based Method and Apparatus for Controlling, Monitoring, Recording and Reporting Telephone Access. T-Netix is the assignee.

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,611,583 issued Aug. 26, 2003, for a Computer-Based Method and Apparatus for Controlling, Monitoring, Recording and Reporting Telephone Access. T-Netix is the assignee.

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,064,963 issued May 16, 2000, for an Automatic Key Word or Phrase Speech Recognition for the Corrections Industry. T-Netix is the assignee.

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,203,301 issued April 10, 2007, for a System and Method for Call Treatment. Evercom is the assignee.

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,836,540 issued Dec. 28, 2004, for Systems and Methods for Offering a Service to a Party Associated with a Blocked Call. Evercom is the assignee.

    Plaintiffs allege Legacy Long Distance International Inc., doing business as Legacy International Inc., and Legacy Inmate Communications are infringing the patents in suit.

    According to the complaint, Legacy makes, uses and sells specialized call-processing and billing equipment and services for correctional institutions in competition with T-Netix and Evercom.

    Legacy's iCon system directly and indirectly infringed the patents-in-suit, the complaint states. Plaintiffs allege Legacy has knowledge of the patents, but has willfully and deliberately continued its infringing activities.

    As a consequence of Legacy's infringement, plaintiffs claim they have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial and will continue to be damaged in their business and property rights unless enjoined by the court.

    Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, costs, attorneys' fees, interest and other relief. They are requesting a trial by jury.

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

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge T. John Ward and referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham for pre-trial proceedings.

    Case No. 2:10-cv-00021-TJW-CE

  • More News