Recent patent infringement/false marking cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

By Marilyn Tennissen | Jun 17, 2010


June 15

  • Allergan Inc. vs Apotex Inc.

    This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patents No. 7,030,149 issued April 18, 2006; No. 7,320,976 issued Jan. 22, 2008; No. 7,323,463 issued Jan. 29, 2008; and No. 7,642,258 issued Jan. 5.

    The patents-in-suit relate to Allergan's glaucoma treatment, Combigan.

    According to the complaint, Allergan received a letter dated April 29 on behalf of defendants Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. stating the companies were seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to manufacture a generic version of Allergan's Combigan. Allergan claims the '149, '976, '463 and '258 Patents had not yet expired at the time of Apotex's application.

    Although Apotex claims the Allergan patents were invalid, Allergan alleges that Apotex infringed the patents-in-suit when it filed the application with the FDA and that any proposed generic version of Combigen would infringe Allergan's patents.

    Jury trial is demanded.

    The plaintiff is seeking an injunction to prevent Apotex from making a generic product. If Apotex attempts to engage in the commercial manufacture, use or sale of a generic Combigen product, then Allergan requests that it be awarded treble damages and interest.

    Allergan is also seeking attorneys' fees, costs and other just and proper relief.

    Gregory P. Love of Stevens Love in Longview, W. Chad Shear of Fish & Richardson PC in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case NO. 2:10-cv-00200-TJW

    June 16

  • BetaNet LLC vs Xerox Corp., et al

    Plaintiff BetaNet is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Allen.

    BetaNet claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,222,134 issued June 22, 1993, and U.S. Patent No. 5,103,476 issued April 7, 1992, for a Secure System for Activating Personal Computer Software at Remote Locations.

    The defendants are Xerox Corp. Activision Blizzard Inc., Ademero Inc., Cakewalk Inc., Check Point Software Tech Inc., CoffeeCup Software Inc., Cvision Tech Inc., Document Imaging Solutions Inc.,, Lenovo Inc., Manedge Software, Motorola Inc., Nvidia Corp., Office Gemini LLC, Polycom Inc., Portable Tech Solutions LLC, Silicon Graphics Intl. Corp., Synchronia PLC and Treeno Software Inc.

    Defendants infringe the patents by using, selling and offering to sell computer software via a process that provides a program file, including a loader segment and a registration shell portion, to a remote computer having a display. The program file contains a first executive control program, representing a limited version of the program file.

    License transaction information is entered in the registration shell portion, and that information is transmitted from the registration shell to a separate registration program provided in a registration computer.

    The registration program merges the license transaction information with a second executive control program � representing a complete version of the program file � to generate a unique overlay file.

    The unique overlay file is transmitted from the registration program to the registration shell, and contains the second executive control program. The overlay file is installed in the main program file, thereby allowing complete operation of the program file.

    The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from infringement, damages, costs, expenses, interest, enhanced damages for willful infringement and attorneys' fees.

    Jury trial demanded.

    Andrew Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview is representing the

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

    Case No. 2:10-cv-00201-TJW-CE

  • More News

    The Record Network