Tyler Division
Feb. 26
Plaintiff Texas OCR Technologies is a Texas limited liability company with its place of business in Longview.
Texas OCR claims it is the owner by right of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,179 issued March 26, 2002, for a Methodology for Displaying Search Results Using Character Recognition.
The plaintiff alleges defendants Amazon.com and Amazon Services infringe the '179 Patent.
According to the complaint, defendants infringe the patent through an interactive Web site which provides a method for searching and purchasing books and other products.
"Specifically, defendants' infringing activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, providing the 'Search Inside This Book' feature on the www.amazon.com Web site.
Texas OCR also claims Amazon had actual knowledge of the '179 Patent, yet nevertheless continued their infringing activities, and their infringing activities have been and continue to be willful.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper under the circumstances. A jury trial is demanded.
Barry Bumgardner of Nelson Bumbardner Casto PC in Fort Worth is attorney in charge for the plaintiff. Eric Albritton of Albritton Law Firm and T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm of Longview are also representing Texas OCR.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Case No. 6:10-cv-00064-LED
According to the complaints, plaintiff Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is one of the largest and most diverse scientific research institutions in the world and has a principal place of business in Cambell, Australia.
The plaintiff claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 issued Jan. 23, 1996, for an invention titled "Wireless LAN."
CSIRO filed three infringement suits against three different defendants over the '069 Patent.
CSIRO alleges defendants T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T are infringing the patent by the manufacture, use, sale, importation and/or offer for sale products practicing the IEEE 802.11a, 802.11g, 802.11n and/or draft 802.11n standards.
In addition, CSIRO alleges it gave notice of the infringements in writing on or about Feb. 20, 2009, yet each defendant continues to infringe the '069 Patent.
The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory and enhanced damages, attorneys' fees, costs and further relief the court may deem proper. A jury trial is demanded.
Elizabeth L. DeRieux of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Longview is representing CSIRO in all the cases.
The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation vs. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 6:10-cv-00065-LED
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation vs. Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, Case No. 6:10-cv-00066-LED.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation vs. AT&T Inc. et al, Case No. 6:10-cv-00067-LED
Feb. 27
Plaintiff Sonix is a company organized and existing under the laws of the country of Taiwan, having a principal place of business in Chupei City, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
According to the complaint, Sonix was established in 1996 and is a leading international developer of integrated circuits and related products used in a wide range of applications including video, image and USB controllers.
It claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 7,328,845 B2 issued Feb. 12, 2008, for a Method for Producing Indicators and Processing Apparatus and System Utilizing the Indicators.
Defendant Vtech Electronics North America LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois. Defendant Vtech Holdings Ltd. is a company organized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong, having its principal place of business at Tai Po, Hong Kong.
The plaintiff alleges defendant VTech sells the Bugsby Reading System including a device called the Bugsby the Bookworm touch pen as well as a collection of books and associated cartridges for use with the touch pen.
Sonix is seeking an injunction against VTech, compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief the court may deem just and proper.
It is also asking that VTech be directed to withdraw from distribution all infringing products and that all infringing products be impounded or destroyed.
A jury trial is requested.
Eric H. Findlay of Findlay Craft LLP in Tyler is representing the plaintiff. Jonathan Hangartner of X-Patents APC in La Jolla, Calif., is of counsel.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Case No. 6:10-cv-00068-LED
March 1
Uniloc (collectively Uniloc USA and Uniloc Singapore) develops, manufactures and licenses security technology solutions, including solutions for securing software and other forms of media such as DVD and audio files.
According to the complaint, Uniloc's patented technology authenticates the true identity of devices attempting to access digital content and high-value technology assets.
Uniloc's technology is used in several markets, including software and game security, identity management and critical infrastructure security, the plaintiff states.
Plaintiff Uniloc claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 issued Feb. 6, 1996, for a System for Software Registration.
The '216 patent is generally directed to systems for securely registering software and other digital media to prevent illicit copying and software piracy.
The plaintiff alleges defendants are infringing the '216 Patent.
Defendants are Cyberlink.com Corp., doing business as Texas Cyberlink Corp.; Informatics Holdings Inc., doing business as Informatics Inc. and Wasp Barcode; Keil Software Inc.; Bynari Inc.; Alt-N Technologies Ltd., Absolute Software Inc., TOPS Software Corp.; Diskeeper Corp.; Brooks Internet Software Inc.; BinaryNow Inc.; Bluebeam Software Inc.; Paraben Corp.; Marware Inc.; Pixologic Inc.; and Teklynx International Co.
Uniloc also alleges the infringements were willful.
The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, interest, expenses, enhanced damages, attorneys' fees and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.
T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm and Eric M. Albritton of Albritton Law Firm in Longview along with James L. Etheridge of Etheridge Law Group LLC in Southlake are representing the plaintiff.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Case No. 6:10-cv-00069-LED
March 2
Plaintiff Prompt Medical Systems is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Texas.
Prompt claims to own the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,483,443 issued Jan. 9, 1996, for a Method for Computing Current Procedural Terminology Codes from Physician Generated Documentation.
The plaintiff alleges more than two dozen companies are infringing the '443 Patent.
Defendants are AllscriptsMisys Healthcare Solutions Inc., AthenaHealth Inc., Cerner Corp., Cure MD Corp., Eclinical Works, Eclipsys Corp., E-MDs Inc., Epic Systems Corp. doing business as Epic Computer Systems Corp., Greenway Medical Technologies Inc., Medent Community computer Service Inc., Medflow Inc. and Medical Information Technology Inc. doing business as Meditech.
Also MedLink International, MedPlexus Inc., Noteworthy Medical Systems Inc., Omni MD, Plato Health Systems Ltd., Infor-Med Medical Information Systems Inc., Pulse Systems Inc., Sage Software Healthcare LLC formerly known as Emdeon Practice Services Inc., Dr. Oates Computer Systems Inc. doing business as Soapware Inc., Asmakta Ltd. and Visionary Medical Systems Inc.
The defendants have caused and will continue to cause Prompt irreparable injury and damage by infringing the '443 Patent, the plaintiff alleges.
Prompt is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, interest, costs and other relief as this court deems just and proper.
A jury trial is demanded.
Ernest W. Boyd of Mehaffy Weber PC in Houston is attorney-in-charge for the plaintiff along with Andy Tindel of Provost Umphrey Law Firm LLP in Tyler.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis.
Case No. 6:10-cv-00071-LED