BEAUMONT DIVISION

July 26

  • Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI Inc. and SKC Inc.

    Kaneka is a Japanese corporation.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of infringing on:

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,018,704 issued on March 28, 2006, for Polymide Film for Flexible Printed Board and Flexible Printed Board Using the Same;
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,691,961 issued April 6 for Polymide Film and Use Thereof;
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,075,064 issued Dec. 24, 1991, for Method and Apparatus for Continuously Producing Resin Films and Installation Thereof;
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,264,866 issued on July 24, 2001, for Method for Producing Polyimide Film; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,746,639 issued on June 8, 2004, for Process for Preparing Polyimide Film.

    The plaintiff argues the defendants' acts of infringement are willful and deliberate.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction enjoining the defendants from continued acts of infringement, for an award of compensatory damages, interest, trebled damages, attorney's fees and costs.

    Dallas attorneys Alfonso Garcia Chan and Christopher L. Evans of Shore Chan Bragalone Depumpo; and Los Angeles, Calif., attorneys Dariush Adli, Rex Hwang and Louise Lu of Adli Law Group are representing the plaintiff.

    Jury trial requested.

    U.S. District Judge Ron Clark is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 1:10cv00430

    MARSHALL DIVISION

    July 20

  • Innova Patent Licensing v 3Com Corp., et al.

    Innova Patent Licensing is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview.

    The defendants are 3Com Corp., AOL Inc., Alcatel-Lucent Holding Inc., American International Group Inc., Apple Inc., Bank of America Corp., Capital One Auto Finance Inc., Capital One Financial Corp., Cinemark Holdings Inc., Cinemark Inc, CitiGroup Inc., Crossmark Inc., Dell Inc., Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc., Ericsson Inc., Frito Lay Inc, Frito-Lay North America Inc., Google Inc., HP Enterprise Services LLC, Hewlett Packard Co., International Business Machines Corp, J.C. Penney Co. Inc., J.C. Penney Mexico Inc., J.C. Penney Reinsurance Co., JC Penney Corp. Inc., JC Penney Life Insurance Co. Inc., JCP Publications Corp., JP Morgan Chase & Co., McAfee Inc., Perot Systems Corp., Rent-A-Center Inc., Research In Motion Corp., Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc., Symantec Corp., Wells Fargo & Co. and Yahoo! Inc.

    Innova accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,018,761 issued Jan. 25, 2000, for System for Adding to Electronic Mail Messages Information Obtained from Sources External to the Electronic Mail Transport Process.

    The plaintiff argues the infringement is willful.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction enjoining the defendants from continued acts of infringement, for an award of compensatory damages, costs, expenses, and interest.

    Innova Patent Licensing is represented by Christopher D. Banys, Daniel W. Bedell and Carmen Aviles of The Lanier Law Firm of Palo Alto, Calif.; and Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

    Jury trial requested.

    U.S. District Judge David Folsom is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00251

  • Promote Innovation LLC v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co. and Ther-RX Corp.

    Promote Innovation is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendant of false patent marking its Gynazole-1 products with U.S. Patent No. 4,078,071 which expired March 7, 1997; U.S. Patent No. 4,551,148 which expired Nov. 5, 2002; and U.S. Patent No. 4,636,202 which expired July 27, 2004.

    Promote is asking the court to order the defendants to pay a civil monetary fine of $500 per false marking offense, with one-half being paid to the United States.

    Jury trial requested.

    The plaintiff is represented by Houston attorneys Zachariah S. Harrington, Matthew J. Antonelli and Larry D. Thompson of Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson in Houston.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00256-TJW

    July 21

  • Promote Innovation LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta LLC and Cisco Systems Inc.

    Promote Innovation is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendant of false patent marking its set-top box products including their 4250HDC, Explorer 8300HD and Explorer 8500 products.

    The Explorer 8300HD is marked with U.S. Patent No. 4,577,216 which expired on Nov. 14, 2003; U.S. Patent No. 4,631,603 which expired on April 17, 2005; and U.S. Patent No. 4,819,098 which expired on April 4, 2006.

    The Explorer 8500 Digital Home Communication Terminal is marked with U.S. Patent No. 4,498,169 which expired on March 14, 2003; and U.S. Patent No. 4,692,919 which expired on Nov. 29, 2005.

    The Explorer 4250HDC Digital Home Communications Terminal is marked with U.S. Patent No. 4,498,169, which expired March 14, 2003; U.S. Patent No. 4,577,216, which expired Nov. 14, 2003; U.S. Patent No. 4,631,603, which expired April 17, 2005; U.S. Patent No. 4,692,919, which expired Nov.29, 2005; U.S. Patent No. 4,819,098, which expired April 4,2006; U.S. Patent No. 4,991,011, which expired Dec. 23, 2008; U.S. Patent No. 4,922,456, which expired April 28, 2008; U.S. Patent No. 4,924,498, which expired April 29, 2008; U.S. Patent No. 4,987,486, which expired Dec. 23, 2008; and U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384, which expired April 1, 2008.

    Promote is asking the court to order the defendants to pay a civil monetary fine of $500 per false marking offense, with one-half being paid to the United States.

    Jury trial requested.

    The plaintiff is represented by Houston attorneys Zachariah S. Harrington, Matthew J. Antonelli and Larry D. Thompson of Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson in Houston.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00256-TJW

    July 22

  • Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v. Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. Ltd., et al.

    The plaintiffs Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co. Ltd and Hitachi Advanced Digital Inc. are Japanese corporations.

    The defendants are Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. Ltd., TPV Intl. (USA) Inc., Envision Peripherals Inc., Top Victory Electronics (Fuijian) Co. Ltd., TPV Electronics (Fuijian) Co. Ltd., TPV Technology Ltd. and Vizio, Inc.

    The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of infringing on:

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,502,497 issued on March 26, 1996, for Television Broadcasting Method and System Enabling Picture Broadcasting From the Transmitting Equipment to the Receiving Equipment Using Alternative Broadcasting System Standards;
  • U.S. Patent No 5,534,934 issued July 9, 1996, for Television Receiver Capable of Enlarging and Compressing Image;
  • U.S. Patent No 6,037,995 issued March 14, 2000, for Broadcasting and Communication Receiver Apparatus;
  • U.S. Patent No 6,388,713 issued Jan. 28, 2003, for Image Display Apparatus and Method to Prevent or Limit User Adjustment of Displayed Image Quality;
  • U.S. Patent No 6,549,243 issued April 15, 2003, for Digital Broadcasting Receiver Unit;
  • U.S. Patent No 7,012,769 issued March 14, 2006, for Digital Information Recording/Reproducing Apparatus;
  • U.S. Patent No 7,286,310 issued Oct. 23, 2007, for Apparatus for Receiving Compressed Digital Information; and
  • U.S. Patent No 6,144,412 issued Nov. 7, 2000, for Method and Circuit for Signal Processing of Format Conversion of Picture Signal.

    The plaintiffs argue the defendants' acts of infringement are willful and deliberate. The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an injunction enjoining the defendants from continued acts of infringement, for an award of compensatory damages, trebled damages, attorney's fees and costs.

    Austin attorneys Gretchen S. Sween, Jeffrey B. Plies and George W. Webb III of Dechert LLP are representing the plaintiffs.

    Jury trial requested.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00260

    July 23

  • Geotag Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corp., et al.

    Geotag is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Plano.

    The defendants are Frontier Communications Corp., Local.com Corp., Dex One Corp., Windstream Communications Inc., Yellow Book USA Inc., Intelius Inc., Center'd Corp., IDC Networks Inc., Go2 Media Inc., HelloMetro Inc., MagicYellow Inc., Solfo Inc., Yelp! Inc. and CityGrid Media LLC.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474 issued on July 27, 1999, for Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information.

    "Generally, the '474 patent discloses systems and methods for integrating geographically organized data with topical data to help Internet users find information on the Internet quickly and efficiently," the complaint states.

    Geotag argues the infringement is willful and is therefore, asking the court for an award of treble damages.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to prevent the defendants from further acts of infringement and for an award of all damages to and costs incurred to the plaintiff due to the infringing activities, plus interest, attorney's fees and court costs.

    Geotag is represented by Fort Worth attorneys Jonathan Suder and David Skeels of Friedman, Suder & Cooke; Austin attorneys Paul Knisely, Thomas Prehoditch and Jason Panzer of Knisely, Prehoditch & Panzer; and Dallas attorneys Mark Strachan and Shawn Long of Sayles Werbner.

    Jury trial requested.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00265

  • Texas Data Co. LLC v. Callaway Golf Co.

    Texas Data Co. is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office in Longview.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendant of falsely marking its products with expired patents. The products and patents at issue are:

  • Warbird marked with U.S. Patent No. 4,838,556 which expired on Dec. 24, 2007; U.S. Patent No. 4,852,884 which expired on Dec. 24, 2007; U.S. Patent No. 4,884,814 which expired on Jan. 15, 2008; U.S. Patent No. 4,911,451 which expired on March 29, 2009.
  • HX Hot Bite marked with expired '451 patent;
  • Big Bertha Diablo marked with expired '451 patent;
  • Tour iX marked with expired '556 patent and '884 patent; and
  • Warbird Plus marked with expired '451 patent.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to order the defendant to pay a civil monetary fine of $500 per false marking offense, with one-half being paid to the United States and one-half being paid to Texas Data Co., for an award of interest, costs and attorney fees and for an injunction prohibiting the defendant from continued acts of false marking.

    Longview attorneys Gregory P. Love and Scott E. Stevens of Stevens Love are representing the plaintiff.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00268

  • Texas Data Co. LLC v. Target Brands Inc. and Target Corp.

    Texas Data Co. is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office in Longview.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of falsely marking its Up&Up Training Pants products with expired patents.

    The patents at issue are:

  • U.S. Patent No. 4,938,753 which expired on June 27, 2009;
  • U.S. Patent No. 4,695,278 which expired on Oct. 11, 2005;
  • U.S. Patent No. 4,940,464 which expired on July 11, 2009; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,147,343 which expired on April 10, 2009.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to order the defendants to pay a civil monetary fine of $500 per false marking offense, with one-half being paid to the U.S. and one-half being paid to Texas Data Co., for an award of interest, costs and attorney fees and for an injunction prohibiting the defendants from continued acts of false marking.

    Longview attorneys Gregory P. Love, Scott E. Stevens, Matthew W. Hill and Jason A. Holt of Stevens Love are representing the plaintiff.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00269

  • Texas Data Co. LLC v. Bridgestone Golf Inc.

    Texas Data Co. is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office in Longview.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendant of falsely marking its products with expired patents.

    The products and patents at issue are the following:

  • Tour B330, e5+ and Tour B330-Rx marked with U.S. Patent No. 4,915,389 which expired Nov. 16, 2008 and U.S. Patent No. 5,024,444 which expired Nov. 9, 2009; and
  • Precept Lady iQ Plus with U.S. Patent No. 4,613,403 which expired on June 13, 2005.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to order the defendant to pay a civil monetary fine of $500 per false marking offense, with one-half being paid to the United States and one-half being paid to Texas Data Co., for an award of interest, costs and attorney fees and for an injunction prohibiting the defendant from continued acts of false marking.

    Longview attorneys Gregory P. Love and Scott E. Stevens of Stevens Love are representing the plaintiff.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00270

  • Texas Data Co. LLC v. Acushnet Co.

    Texas Data Co. is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office in Longview.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendant of falsely marking Titleist Nxt Extreme products with expired patents.

    The patents at issue are the following:

  • U.S. Patent No. 4,779,387 which expired Feb. 5, 2008;
  • U.S. Patent No. 4,865,326 which expired Sept. 24, 2007;
  • U.S. Patent No. 4,960,281 which expired Oct. 17, 2009;
  • U.S. Patent No. 4,988,280 which expired June 26, 2009; and
  • U.S. Patent No. 5,018,742 which expired Sept. 12, 2006.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to order the defendant to pay a civil monetary fine of $500 per false marking offense, with one-half being paid to the United States and one-half being paid to Texas Data Co., for an award of interest, costs and attorney fees and for an injunction prohibiting the defendant from continued acts of false marking.

    Longview attorneys Gregory P. Love, Scott E. Stevens, Matthew M. Hill and Jason A. Holt of Stevens Love are representing the plaintiff.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00271

    July 26

  • Geotag Inc. v. Yellowpages.com LLC

    Geotag is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Plano.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendant of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474 issued on July 27, 1999, for Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information.

    "Generally, the '474 patent discloses systems and methods for integrating geographically organized data with topical data to help Internet users find information on the Internet quickly and efficiently," the complaint states.

    Geotag argues the infringement is willful and is therefore, asking the court for an award of treble damages.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to prevent the defendants from further acts of infringement and for an award of all damages to and costs incurred to the plaintiff due to the infringing activities, plus interest, attorney's fees and court costs.

    Geotag is represented by Fort Worth attorneys Jonathan Suder and David Skeels of Friedman, Suder & Cooke; and Austin attorneys Paul Knisely, Thomas Prehoditch and Jason Panzer of Knisely, Prehoditch & Panzer.

    Jury trial requested. U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00272

    July 26

  • Geotag Inc. v. Yellowpages.com LLC

    Geotag is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Plano.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendant of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474 issued on July 27, 1999, for Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information.

    "Generally, the '474 patent discloses systems and methods for integrating geographically organized data with topical data to help Internet users find information on the Internet quickly and efficiently," the complaint states.

    Geotag argues the infringement is willful and is therefore, asking the court for an award of treble damages.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to prevent the defendants from further acts of infringement and for an award of all damages to and costs incurred to the plaintiff due to the infringing activities, plus interest, attorney's fees and court costs.

    Geotag is represented by Fort Worth attorneys Jonathan Suder and David Skeels of Friedman, Suder & Cooke; and Austin attorneys Paul Knisely, Thomas Prehoditch and Jason Panzer of Knisely, Prehoditch & Panzer.

    Jury trial requested.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00272

    July 27

  • Texas Data Co. LLC v. Energizer Personal Care LLC and Playtex Products LLC

    Texas Data Co. is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office in Longview.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of falsely marking its products with inapplicable patents.

    The products and patents at issue are the following:

  • Playtex VentAire Advanced 6 oz. Natural Feeding System marked with U.S. Design Patents D479,606 and D465,028;
  • Playtex VentAire Advanced 9 oz. Natural Feeding System marked with U.S. Design Patents D479,606 and D465,028;
  • Playtex Drop-Ins System NaturaLatch Nipples Medium Flow marked with U.S. Design Patent D479,606;
  • PlaytexDrop-Ins System NaturaLatch Nipples Fast Flow marked with U.S. Design Patent D479,606;
  • Playtex Drop-Ins System Premium Nurser marked with U.S. Design Patent D497,672; D460,825; and D497,671;
  • Playtex Diaper Genie Twistaway Disposal System Refill Container marked with U.S. Design Patent D463,636; and
  • Playtex Sipster 9 oz. Spill-Proof Cups marked with U.S. Design Patents D500,226.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to order the defendants to pay a civil monetary fine of $500 per false marking offense, with one-half being paid to the United States and one-half being paid to Texas Data Co., for an award of interest, costs and attorney fees and for an injunction prohibiting the defendant from continued acts of false marking.

    Longview attorneys Scott E. Stevens, Matthew M. Hill and Jason A. Holt of Stevens Love are representing the plaintiff.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00273

  • Texas Data Co. LLC v. Energizer Personal Care LLC and Playtex Products LLC

    Texas Data Co. is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office in Longview.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of falsely marking its products with inapplicable patents.

    The products and patents at issue are the Playtex The First Sipster 7oz Spill Proof Cups marked with U.S. Design Patents D520,809; D476,848; and D515,867; and the Paytex Coolster 9 oz Spill-Proof Cup marked with U.S. Design Patents D545,118 and D545,623.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to order the defendants to pay a civil monetary fine of $500 per false marking offense, with one-half being paid to the United States and one-half being paid to Texas Data Co., for an award of interest, costs and attorney fees and for an injunction prohibiting the defendant from continued acts of false marking.

    Longview attorneys Scott E. Stevens, Matthew M. Hill and Jason A. Holt of Stevens Love are representing the plaintiff.

    U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 2:10cv00274

    TEXARKANA DIVISION

    July 20

  • Priefert Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Tarter Gate Co. LLC.

    Priefert is a Texas corporation with its principal location in Mt. Pleasant.

    Tarter is Kentucky company that sells ranch and equine-related products.

    Priefert states the defendant is promoting and selling farm and equine-related equipment using Prieferts' designs.

    The plaintiff accuses Tarter Gate of false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, trade dress infringement under the Latham Act, common law misappropriation and unfair completion, and palming off and unfair competition.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for a permanent injunction to stop the design infringement, for an award of treble actual damages, interest, attorneys' fees, court costs and exemplary damages.

    Priefert is represented by Charles C. Frederisken of Glast, Phillips & Murray in Dallas; George Louis McWilliams in Texarkana; and Bruce Alan Kugler and Ian Richard Walsworth of Sheridan Ross in Denver, Colo.

    Jury trial requested. U.S. District Judge David Folsom is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 5:10cv00122

  • Tex Pat LLC v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., et al.

    Tex Pat is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston.

    The defendants area Becton, Dickinson and Co.; BD Biosciences, a division of Becton, Dickinson and Co.; and Benex Ltd.

    The plaintiff is accusing the defendants of falsely marking its products including the following:

  • Rodac Plate products with U.S. Patent No. 3,729,382 which expired on Dec. 9, 1990;
  • BD Bactex Peds Plus/F Culture Vials and BD Bactec Plus Aerobic/F and Plus Anaerobic/F Culture Vials with U.S. Patent No. 4,632,902 which expired on Jan. 3, 2005;
  • BD RPR Card Antigen Suspension products with U.S. Patent No. 3,074,853 which expired on June 22, 1981;
  • BD BBL Sensi-Disc products with U.S. Patent No. 3,394,846 which expired on Feb. 16, 1987;
  • BD BBL CampyPak Plus Microaerophilic System Envelopes with Palladium Catalyst with U.S. Patent No. 4,377,554 which expired on Aug. 26, 2001 and U.S. Patent No. 4,976,931 which expired on Dec. 31, 2002;
  • BD BBL Port-A-Cul Specimen Collection and Transport products with U.S. Patent No. 4,030,978 which expired on July 29, 1996; and
  • BD Vacutainer CPT Cell Preparation Tube with Sodium Citrate products with US. Patent No. 4,190,535 which expired on July 10, 1998, U.S. Patent No. 4,350,593 which expired on Sept. 21, 1999, U.S. Patent No. 4,751,001 which expired on June 14, 2005, U.S. Patent No. 4,818,418 which expired on April 4, 2006, and U.S. Patent No. 5,053,134 which expired on April 17, 2007.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from continued violations and to order the defendants to pay a civil monetary fine of $500 per false marking offense, with one-half being paid to the United States, plus interest.

    The plaintiff is represented by Hao Ni of Ni Law Firm in Dallas, Tyler Brochstein of Brochstein Law Firm in Dallas and Jack Siegel in Dallas.

    Jury trial is requested.

    U.S. District Judge David Folsom is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 5:10cv00123

    July 23

  • Mack-Ray Inc. v. The J.M. Smucker Co.

    Mack-Ray is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in Bentonville, Ark.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendant of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,645,085 issued Jan. 12 for Spreader Apparatus, For Use with Dispensers.

    Mack-Ray states that the spreader apparatus on Smucker's Squeeze fruit spread products is infringing on the '085 patent.

    The plaintiff is asking for an award of all damages caused by the infringement in no less than a reasonable royalty, for interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

    Houston attorneys Edward W. Goldstein and Corby R. Vowell of Goldstein, Faucett & Prebeg are representing Mack-Ray.
    Jury trial requested.

    U.S. District Judge David Folsom is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 5:10cv00127

    TYLER DIVISION

    July 20

  • Kellstrom Integration Solutions LLC v. Siemens PLM Software Inc., et al.

    Kellstrom is a Delaware limited liability company located in Frisco.

    The defendants are Siemens PLM Software Inc., DSC Software Inc., Cideon America Inc., .riess Corp., Tesis PLM USA and Cenit North America, Inc.

    Kellstrom accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,088,625 for System for Transferring Assembly Data and Method Therefor.

    The plaintiff argues the infringement is willful.

    The plaintiff is asking the Court to enjoin the defendants from continued acts of infringement, for an award of damages resulting from the infringement, for an award of an ongoing royalty rate, treble damages, attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

    Kellstrom is also asking the court to order the impounding and destruction of all defendants' products that infringe on the '625 patent.

    The plaintiff is represented by Anthony G. Simon and Timothy E. Grochocinski of The Simon Law Firm in St. Louis, Mo.

    Jury trial requested.
    U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:10cv00355

    July 21

  • Patent Harbor LLC v. Audiovox Corp., et al.

    Patent Harbor is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Tyler.

    The defendants are Audiovox Corp., Best Buy Co. Inc., DPI Inc., Denon Electronics (USA) LLC, GPX Inc., Haier America Trading LLC, Harmon International Industries Inc., Imation Corp., Initial Technology Inc., JVC Americas Corp., Klipsch Group, Klipsch LLC, Onkyo USA Corp., Panasonic Corporation of North America, Philips Electronics North America Corp., Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., Radioshack Corp., Samsung C&T America Inc., Samsung Electronics America Inc., Sharp Electronics Corp., Sherwood America Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products LLC, Toshiba America Inc., Venturer Electronics Inc., Vizio Inc., Yamaha Corporation of America and Yamaha Electronics Corporation USA.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,977,992 issued Nov. 2, 1999, and U.S. Patent No. 5,684,514 issued Nov. 4, 1997, for Apparatus and Method for Assembling Content Addressable Video.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to prevent the defendants from further acts of infringement or in the alternative for an on-going royalty for future acts of infringement, and for an award of compensatory damages, plus interest.

    Patent Harbor is represented by Keith A. Rutherford, John C. Cain and Scott Reese of Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri in Houston and T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

    Jury trial is requested.
    U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:10cv00361

    July 22

  • Tech Pharmacy Services, doing business as Advanced Pharmacy, et al v. Provider Meds LP, et al.

    Tech Pharmacy, doing business as Advanced Pharmacy and Advanced Pharmacy Services, is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Houston.

    The defendants are Provider Meds LP, Provider Technologies Inc., ProvideRx of PA LLC, ProvideRx of Waco LLC, ProvideRx of Grapevine LLC, ProvideRx of San Antonio LLC, ProvideRx of Midland LLC, Provider Business Solutions Inc., Pharmacy Technologies Inc., Pharmacy Solutions LP, W Pa OnSiteRx and Reef R. Gillum.

    Tech Pharmacy accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,698,019 issued April 13 for System and Software of Enhanced Pharmaceutical Operations in Long-Term Care Facilities and Related Methods.

    The plaintiff argues the infringement is willful and deliberate.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to enjoin the defendants from continued acts of infringement, for an award of compensatory damages resulting from the infringement, treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

    The plaintiff is represented by Michael D. Pegues and Jason A. Wietjes of Bracewell and Giulianai in Dallas.

    Jury trial requested.
    U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:10cv00363

    July 26

  • Supply Chain Finance Systems LLC v. Bank of America Corp., et al.

    Supply Chain Finance Systems is a Texas limited liability company located in Frisco.

    The defendants are Bank of America Corp., CGI Group Holdings USA Inc., Comerica Inc., J. C. Penney Corp. Inc., Primerevenue Inc., Quadrem U.S. Inc., Tradecard Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co.

    Supply Chain Finance Systems accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,266,525 and U.S. Patent No. 7,716,130 for Invoiceless Trading and Settlement Method and System.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of willful infringement.

    The plaintiff is asking the Court to enjoin the defendants from continued acts of infringement or in the alternative an ongoing royalty, for an award of compensatory damages resulting from the infringement, treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for an order to impounding and destruction of all defendants' apparatuses that infringe on the '525 patent and '130 patent.

    The plaintiff is represented by Anthony G. Simon and Timothy E. Grochocinski of The Simon Law Firm in St. Louis, Mo.

    Jury trial requested.
    U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:10cv00368

    July 27

  • The Pacid Group LLC v. Best Buy Co. Inc. et al

    The Pacid Group is a Texas limited liability company located in Tyler.

    The defendants are 3eTechnologies Intl. Inc., AboCom Systems Inc., Actiontec Electronics Inc., Allied Telesis Holdings K.K., Allied Telesis Inc., Archos SA, Archos Inc., Arris Group Inc., BBC Property Co., BelAir Networks, Belair Networks Corp., Best Buy Co. Inc., Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Best Buy Stores L.P., Bluesocket Inc., Brocade Communications Systems Inc., Buffalo Technology (USA) Inc., Buffalo Inc., CSR PLC, D&M Holdings Inc., DSP Group Inc., Dasan Networks Inc., Denon Electronics (USA) LLC, DrayTek Corp., EF Johnson Technologies Inc., Eastman Kodak Co., Fortress Technologies Inc., Foundry Networks LLC, Futurewei Technologies Inc., GCT Semiconductor Inc., Hand Held Products Inc., Harman Consumer Inc., Harman International Industries Inc. , Honeywell International Inc., Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., ICOM America Inc., ICOM Inc., Ingenico Corp., Ingenico Inc., Inrange Technologies Corp., Intermec International Inc., Intermec Technologies Corp., Intermec Inc., Kodak Americas Ltd., Lexmark International Inc., Logitech Inc., Logitech International S.A., MediaTek Inc., MediaTek USA Inc., Melco Holdings Inc., Microchip Technology Inc., Novatel Wireless Solutions, Novatel Wireless Inc., Planex Communications Inc., Planex Communications USA Inc., Psion PLC, Psion Teklogix, Redpine Signals Inc., Ricoh Americas Corp., Ricoh Co. Ltd., Ricoh Electronics Inc., SMC Networks Inc., Satellite CD Radio Inc., SerComm Corp., Sirius XM Radio Inc., TOKO America Inc., TOKO Inc., TP-Link Technologies Co Ltd., TP-Link USA Corp., UTC Fire & Security Americas Corp. Inc., UTC Fire & Security Corp., United Technologies Corp., Via Technologies Inc., Vtech Communications Inc., Vtech Holdings, Vtech Telecom L.L.C., Vtech Telecommunications Ltd., Westell Technologies Inc., Westell Inc., Wipro Inc., Wipro Technologies, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Yamaha Corp., Yamaha Corporation of America, Yamaha Electronics Corp. USA, ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corp.

    The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are willfully infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,963,646 issued Oct. 5, 1999, for Secure Deterministic Encryption Key Generator System and Method and U.S. Patent No. 6,049,612 issued April 11, 2000, for File Encryption Method and System.

    The plaintiff is seeking an injunction enjoining defendants from continued infringement, an award of damages, costs, interest, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.

    Jury trial is demanded.

    Longview attorney Andrew Spangler of Spangler Law PC; Los Angeles attorney Marc A. Fenster of Russ, August & Kabat; and Flint, Mich., attorney Patrick R. Anderson are representing the plaintiff.

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

    Case No. 6:10cv00370

  • More News