MARSHALL DIVISION

July 20

  • Webvention LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.

    Webvention is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall.

    The defendants are Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Church & Dwight Co Inc, ConocoPhillips, Dell Inc., Donaldson Co. Inc., ETRADE Financial Corp., GameStop Corp., HTC America Inc., Iasis Healthcare LLC, Insight Enterprises Inc., Neiman Marcus Inc., Pioneer Natural Resources Co., Tenneco Inc., The Finish Line Inc., TravelCenters of America LLC, United Parcel Service Inc. and Visa Inc.

    Webvention accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,251,294 issued Oct. 5, 1993, for Accessing, Assembling, and Using Bodies of Information.

    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, treble damages, attorney's fees and costs.

    Webvention is represented Longview attorneys William E. Bo Davis III of the Davis Firm and Eric M. Albritton and Adam A. Biggs of Albritton Law Firm.

    Jury trial requested.

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

    Case No. 2:10cv00253

    July 21

  • Rmail Limited. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al.

    Rmail Limited is a Bermuda corporation.

    The defendants are Amazon.com Inc., Paypal Inc. and Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication SCRL, doing business as Swift.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,182,219 and U.S. Patent No. 6,571,334.

    Rmail Limited states that Amazon is infringing on the patents through its Instant Order Processing Notification API, PayPal's Instant Payment Notification and Swift's FIN messaging services.

    The plaintiff is asking the Court to prevent the defendants from further acts of infringement and for an award of compensatory damages, plus interest.

    Rmail Limited is represented by Marshall attorney Michael C. Smith of Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith. Additional counsel includes Chicago attorney Robert P. Greenspoon of Flachsbart & Greenspoon.

    Jury trial requested.

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

    Case No. 2:10cv00258

    July 29

  • Linksmart Wireless Technology LLC v. TJ Hospitality Ltd., et al

    Linksmart Wireless Technology is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in Pasadena, Calif.

    The defendants are TJ Hospitality Ltd., MMD Hotel Kilgore LP, Heritage Inn Number XIV, Eight Pack Tyler LP, Heritage Inn Number X, B D & Sons Ltd., Heritage Inn Number XII, Carlex Hospitality LLC, Prus LLC, Meritax LLC, 281 Lodging Partnership Ltd., Longview Hotel Partners Inc., Hwy 259 Lodging LLC, NYR Property Corp., I-30 Hospitality Corp. LLC, Amit C. Patel, Jyotika A. Patel and Krishan Inc.

    The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are willfully infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118 issued on Aug. 17, 2004 for User Specific Automatic Data Redirection System.

    The defendants are allegedly using or selling wireless Internet access systems which utilize captive portal techniques to block and/or redirect HTTP requests.

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

    Jury trial is demanded.

    The plaintiff is represented by Andrew Spangler of Spangler Law in Longview and Marc A. Fenster and Andrew D. Weiss of Russ, August & Kabat and Flint in Los Angeles, Calif.

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

    Case No. 2:10cv00277

    July 30

  • OPTi Inc. v. Silicon Integrated Systems Corp. and Via Technologies Inc.

    Plaintiff OPTi is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, Calif.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,710,906 issued on Jan. 20, 1998, and U.S. Patent No. 6,405,291 issued on June 11, 2002, for Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses.

    OPTi argues the defendants are willfully infringing on the '906 and '291 patents.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to enjoin the defendants from further acts of infringement, for an award of damages and other monetary relief, including interest and an award of treble damages and attorney's fees.

    The plaintiff is represented by Sam Baxter of McKool Smith in Marshall and Michael L. Brody, Taras A. Gracey and Ethan McComb of
    Winston & Strawn in Chicago.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:10cv00279

    TEXARKANA DIVISION

    Aug. 1

  • Tex Pat LLC v. Stryker Corp. and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. d/b/a Stryker Orthopedics

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

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

  • Dall-Miles Cable System products with U.S. Patent No. 4,269,180 which expired on March 19, 2009, and
  • Restoration PS Revision Hip System products with U.S. Patent No. 4,550,448 which expired on Feb. 18, 2005; U.S. Patent No. 4,668,290 which expired on Aug. 13, 2005; U.S. Patent No. 4,714,468 which expired on Aug. 13, 2005; U.S. Patent No. 4,834,756 which expired on May 30, 2006; and U.S. Patent No. 5,129,324 which expired on July 14, 2009.

    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 Dallas attorneys Hao Ni of Ni Law Firm, Tyler Brochstein of Brochstein Law Firm and Jack Siegel.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 5:10cv00129

  • Tex Pat LLC v. Dentsply International Inc., et al.

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

    The defendants are Dentsply International Inc., and its divisions Dentsply Caulk, Dentsply Rinn and Dentsply Prosthetics and Dentsply Prosthetics U.S. LLC.

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

  • Neycraft Centrifugal Casting Machine products with U.S. Patent No. 4,272,181 which expired on Oct. 30, 1999;
  • Principle Self-Adhesive Compomer Cement products with U.S. Patent No. 4,514,342 which expired on Feb. 7, 2003;
  • XCP Instruments for Extension Cone Paralleling Technique products with U.S. Patent No. 3,003,062 which expired on Nov. 19, 1979; and U.S. Patent No. 3,863,576 which expired on Sept. 27, 1993; and
  • Regular Set Jeltrate Plus AntiMicrobial Dustless Alginate Impression Material products with U.S. Patent No. 4,394,172 which expired on Aug. 17, 2001.

    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 Dallas attorneys Hao Ni of Ni Law Firm, Tyler Brochstein of Brochstein Law Firm and Jack Siegel.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 5:10cv00130

    Aug. 2

  • Tex Pat LLC v. Sensata Technologies Maryland Inc., et al.

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

    The defendants are Sensata Technologies Maryland Inc., Sensata Technologies Massachusetts Inc., Sensata Technologies Inc. and Sensata Technologies B.V.

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

  • Airpax 6700 Series, T0-220, PC Boar Mount Bimetal Disc Thermostat products with U.S. Patent No. 4,795,997 which expired on Jan. 3, 2001; and
  • Airpax 6600 Series, 8-pin Dip Bimetal Thermostat products with U.S. Patent No. 4,620,175 which expired on Oct. 11, 2005.

    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 Dallas attorneys Hao Ni of Ni Law Firm, Tyler Brochstein of Brochstein Law Firm and Jack Siegel.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 5:10cv00131

  • Tex Pat LLC v. Littelfuse Inc., et al.
    Tex Pat is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Houston.

    The defendants are Littelfuse Inc., Teccor Electronics Inc., and Teccor Delaware Inc.

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

  • SIDACtor Protection Thyristor Semiconductor products with U.S. Patent No. 4,685,120 which expired on Nov. 26, 2005; U.S. Patent No. 4,827,497 which expired on March 9, 2007; and U.S. Patent No. 4,905119 which expired on June 27, 2008; and
  • PICO II Fact-Acting Type Fuses products with U.S. Patent No. 4,385,281 which expired on March 19, 2001.

    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 Dallas attorneys Hao Ni of Ni Law Firm, Tyler Brochstein of Brochstein Law Firm and Jack Siegel.

    Jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 5:10cv00132

    TYLER DIVISION

    July 29

  • Uniloc USA Inc. and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited v. Sony Corp. of America, et al.

    Uniloc USA is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, Calif. Uniloc Singapore is a Singapore corporation with its principal place of business in Singapore.

    The defendants are Sony Corp. of America, Sony DADC US Inc., Activision Blizzard Inc., Aspyr Media Inc., Borland Software Corp., McAfee Inc. and Quark Inc.

    The plaintiff accuses the defendants of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 issued on Feb. 6, 1996, for System for Software Registration.

    The plaintiff is asking the court to enjoin the defendants from further acts of infringement, for an award of damages and other monetary relief, including interest and an award of treble damages and attorney's fees.

    The plaintiff is represented by Paul J. Hayes and Dean G. Bostock of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo in Boston, Mass., and T. John Ward and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

    Jury trial requested.

    U.S. District Leonard Davis is assigned to the case.

    Case No. 6:10cv00373

    LUFKIN DIVISION

    July 30

  • Promethean Inc. v. eInstruction Corp.

    Promethean Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Alpharetta, Ga.

    Defendant eInstruction is one of Promethean's largest competitors in the U.S. market, according to the complaint. Both parties sell interactive whiteboards, learning response systems and wireless interactive tablets.

    The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of falsely marking its products including Interwrite Mobi, Dualboard, RFCOM, RF Hub and Mobi Dock with U.S. Patent No. 6,930,673, entitled "Collaborative Input System." The plaintiff states the '673 patent does not cover these products.

    The plaintiff is asking the court for a determination that eInstruction is false marking its products and 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.

    The plaintiff is represented by J. Thad Heartfield of The Heartfield Law Firm in Beaumont, Fay E. Morisseau of McDermott Will & Emery in Houston, Daniel R. Foster, Christopher D. Bright and Brock Wilson of McDermott Will & Emery in Irvine, Calif., and Michael S. Nadel and Rebecca A.H. Watson of McDermott Will & Emery in Washington, D.C.

    Jury trial requested.

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

    Case No. 9:10cv00106

  • More News