PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES

Marshall Division

Jan. 12

  • KKG v. The Rank Group d/b/a Reynolds Kitchen and/or Reynolds Group, et al.

    Plaintiff KKG is a New Mexico limited liability company with Kristy Garcia as the sole managing member and the inventor of the patent-in-suit.

    The defendants are The Rank Group d/b/a Reynolds Kitchen and/or Reynolds Group, Wal-Mart Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and M & Q Packaging.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,112,764 B2 issued Sept. 26, 2006, for Disposable Liner for Cookware.

    KKG accuses the defendants of capitalizing on Mrs. Garcia's invention during the time her patent application was pending.

    The plaintiff is asking the Court for an award of damage, treble damages, interest, court costs and attorney's fees.

    KKG is represented by Arnold Anderson Vickery and Michael P. Mallia of Vickery, Waldner & Mallier in Houston and Kevin Lynn Wildenstein of Southwest Intellectual Property Services in Albuquerque, N.M.

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

    Case No. 2:11-cv-00012

    Jan. 18

  • Western Digital Technologies Inc., et al. v. The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al.

    The plaintiffs are Western Digital Technologies and Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Inc.

    Western Digital is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business sin Lake Forest, Calif. Hitachi is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Jose, Calif.

    The defendants are the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, Carl B. Collins and Farzin Davanloo.

    The defendants are the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 5,411,797 issued May 4, 1995, and U.S. Patent No. 5,478,650 issued Dec. 26, 1995, for Nanophase Diamond Films.

    Defendant Collins and Davanloo filed a lawsuit against Western Digital and Technology in July 2009 regarding infringement of the patents.

    In the current case, the plaintiffs are asking the Court to determine whether the patents-in-suit are invalid and unenforceable. The plaintiffs are also asking the Court to find that they have not infringing on the patents and for an award of attorney's fees and costs.

    The original case was filed Aug. 16 in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. The defendants transferred the case to the Marshall federal court.

    Western Digital is represented by Scott D. Baskin of Irell & Manella.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:11-cv-00018

    Tyler Division

    Jan. 12

  • VirnetX Inc. v. Mitel Networks Corp. et al.

    Plaintiff VirnetX is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Scotts Valley, Calif.

    The defendants are Mitel Networks Corp., Mitel Networks Inc., Siemens AG, Siemens Corp., Siemens Enterprise Communications GmbH & Co. KG, Siemens Communications Inc. and Siemens Enterprise Communications Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 issued Dec. 31, 2002, for Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications with Assured System Availability and U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504 issued Aug. 26, 2008, for Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications Using Secure Domain Names.

    VirnetX is asking the Court to issue a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from further acts of infringement and for an award of damages, costs and interest.

    The plaintiff is represented by Sam Baxter of McKool Smith in Marshall and Douglas A. Cawley, Luke F. McLeroy, Bradley W. Caldwell and Jason D. Cassady of McKool Smith in Dallas.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 6:11-cv-00018

    Jan. 14

  • Advanced Encoding Solutions v. Broadcom Corp. et al.

    The plaintiff is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Frisco.

    The defendants are Broadcom Corp., Ericsson Television Inc. and Technicolor USA Inc. d/b/a Grass Valley.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,081,297 issued June 27, 2000, for MPEG-2 Encoder Pre-Processor for Processing SDTV Video and HDTV Split Picture Video.

    Advanced Encoding Solutions is asking the Court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from further acts of infringement and for an award of monetary damages, enhanced damages, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and interest.

    The plaintiff is represented by Eric M. Albritton of the Albritton Law Firm in Longview, T. John Ward Jr. of the Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview and Andrew DiNovo of DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy in Austin.

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

    Case No. 6:11-cv-00024

  • Memtech v. Analog Devices Inc. et al.

    MemTech is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Frisco.

    The defendants are Analog Devices Inc., DENSO International America Inc., Digi-Key Corp., Digi-Key International Sales Corp., Freescale Semiconductor Inc., Kionix Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America, Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc. and VTI Technologies Inc.

    The defendants are accused of willfully infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,677,560 issued Oct. 14, 1997, for Micromechanical Component and Process for the Fabrication Thereof.

    MemTech is asking the Court for an award of damages, costs, expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees.

    The plaintiff is represented by Henry M. Pogorzelski, Michael J. Collins, John H. Edmonds, Andrew P. Tower and Steve Schlater of Collins, Edmonds & Pogorzelski in Houston and Melissa R. Smith of Gilliam & Smith in Marshall.

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

    Case No. 6:11-cv-00025

  • Memtech v. Denso Corp. et al.

    MemTech is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Frisco.

    The defendants are Denso Corp., Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Corp., Toyota Motor Co. and VTI Technologies Oy.

    The defendants are accused of willfully infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,677,560 issued Oct. 14, 1997, for Micromechanical Component and Process for the Fabrication Thereof.

    MemTech is asking the Court for an award of damages, costs, expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorney's fees.

    The plaintiff is represented by Henry M. Pogorzelski, Michael J. Collins, John H. Edmonds, Andrew P. Tower and Steve Schlater of Collins, Edmonds & Pogorzelski in Houston and Melissa R. Smith of Gilliam & Smith in Marshall.

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

    Case No. 6:11-cv-00026

    FALSE PATENT MARKING CASES

    Beaumont Division

  • Plaintiff: Promote Innovation LLC
    Plaintiff's Attorney: Larry D. Thompson, Jr., Zachariah S. Harrington, Matthew J. Antonelli; Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson, Houston
    Judge: Ron Clark

    Jan. 10

  • Defendant: Harmon Stores Inc.
    Patents In Suit: U.S. Patent No. 4,589,976
    Patent Expiration Date: The '976 patent expired on March 20, 2004.
    Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: Harmon Face Values Ultra-Thin with Wings sanitary napkin products
    Case No. 1:11-cv-00012

    Jan. 11

  • Defendant: Ozwest Inc. and Zing Toys Inc.
    Patents In Suit: U.S. Patent No. D340,480
    Patent Expiration Date: The '480 patent expired on Oct. 19, 2007.
    Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: Roomarang products
    Case No. 1:11-cv-00015

    Marshall Division

    Jan. 11

  • Plaintiff: Patent Group
    Judge: T. John Ward
    Plaintiff's Attorney: Ken W. Good; Kent, Good, Anderson & Bush, Tyler. Stafford Davis; Stafford Davis Firm, Tyler

  • Defendant: Walls Industries
    Patents In Suit: U.S. Patent No. 156,012 issued Nov. 15, 1949 for Bib Design
    Patent Expiration Date: the '012 patent expired on November 15, 1966
    Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: Liberty Brand overalls
    Case No. 2:11-cv-00008

  • Defendant: Discraft Inc.
    Patents In Suit: U.S. Patent No. 4,568,297 issued Feb. 4, 1986 for Flying Disc
    Patent Expiration Date: the '297 patent expired on October 27, 2003
    Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: Challenger disc devices
    Case No. 2:11-cv-00010

    Jan. 12

  • Plaintiff: Texas Data L.L.C
    Plaintiff's Attorney: Matthew Hill, Jason A. Holt; Stevens Love, Longview

  • Defendant: Osment Medels Inc. d/b/a Woodland Scenics
    Patents In Suit: U.S. Patent No. 5,215,793 issued June 1, 1993, for Artificial Foliage and Method of Forming Same and U.S. Patent No. 5,019,431 issued May 28, 1991, for Method of Making Artificial Foliage
    Patent Expiration Date: that the '793 patent expired at latest by Oct. 10, 2010, and the '431 patent expired at the latest by Oct. 20, 2009.
    Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: dioramas, displays and arts and crafts: SceneA+Rama Mountain Diorama Kit and SceneA+Rama Foliage & Grass
    Case No. 2:10-cv-00525-TJW

    Texarkana Division

    Jan. 11

  • Plaintiff: Tex Pat LLC
    Plaintiff's Attorney: Hao Ni; Ni Law Firm, Dallas. Tyler Brochstein; Brochstein Law Firm, Dallas. Jack L. Siegel, Dallas.

  • Defendant: Otto Bock HealthCare GmbH, Otto Bock HealthCare LP, Otto Bock HealthCare U.S. Inc.,
    Otto Bock HealthCare North America Inc., Otto Bock Suisse AG, and Otto Bock Orthopadische Industrie KG
    Patents In Suit: U.S. Patent No. 4,377,305 issued March 22, 1983, for Artificial Hand
    Patent Expiration Date: The '305 Patent expired on Jan. 21, 2001
    Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: the MYOBOCK System Electric Greifers, Digital Twin, 6/7.2 Volt with Quick Disconnect Wrist, MYOBOCK System Electric Greifers, Digital Twin, 6/7.2 Volt with Lamination Ring, and MYOBOCK System Electric Greifers, 6 Volt, with Quick Disconnect Wrist products
    Case No. 5:11-cv-00007-DF

    Jan. 12

  • Defendant: Vishay Intertechnology Inc., Vishay Americas Inc., Vishay GSI Inc., and Vishay General
    Semiconductor
    Patents In Suit:
    U.S. Patent No. 3,996,602 issued Dec. 7, 1976, for Passivated and Encapsulated
    Semiconductors and Method of Making Same and U. S. Patent No. 3,930,306 issued Jan. 6, 1976, for Process for Attaching a Lead Member to a Semiconductor Device.
    Patent Expiration Date: The '602 Patent expired on Aug. 14, 1995. The '306 Patent expired on April 24, 1994.
    Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: Surface Mount Glass Passivated Junction Fast Switching Rectifier, models RGF1A thru RGF1M, Glass Passivated Junction Fast Switching Rectifier, models RGP02-12E thru RGP02-20E, Surface Mount Glass Passivated Rectifier, models GF1A thru GF1M, Glass Passivated Ultrafast Rectifier, models EGP20A thru EGP20G, Glass Passivated Junction Rectifier, models 1N4001GP thru 1N4007GP, and Miniature Clamper/Damper Glass Passivated Rectifier, models CGP15 & DGP15 products
    Case No. 5:11-cv-00010-DF

    Jan. 13

  • Defendant: Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp., Integra LifeSciences Corp. and Minnesota
    Scientific Inc., including division Omni-Tract Surgical
    Patents In Suit:
    U.S. Patent No. 4,355,631 issued Oct. 26, 1982, for Surgical Retractor Apparatus with Improved Clamping Device
    U.S. Patent No. 4,617,916 issued Oct. 21, 1986, for Retractor Apparatus
    U.S. Patent No. 4,718,151 issued Jan. 12, 1988, for Retractor Apparatus
    U.S. Patent No. 4,930,932 issued June 5, 1990, for Quick Release Attachment Mechanism
    U.S. Patent No. 4,949,707 issued Aug. 21, 1990, for Retractor Apparatus
    U.S. Patent No. 5,020,195 issued June 4, 1991, for Clamping Device for Use on a Retractor Support
    U.S. Patent No. D343,235 issued Jan. 11, 1994, for Surgical Retractor Blade
    Patent Expiration Date:
    The '631 Patent expired on March 19, 2001.
    The '916 Patent expired on Nov. 8, 2004.
    The '151 Patent expired on Jan. 12, 2005.
    The '932 Patent expired on March 29, 2009.
    The '707 Patent expired on Oct. 21, 2003.
    The '195 Patent expired on Aug. 16, 2009.
    The '235 Patent expired on Jan. 11, 2008.
    Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: Omni-FlexTM General Surgery Retractor System, FastSystem Upper Abdominal Retractor System, FastSystem Stoney Vascular Retractor System, Omni-Flex Vascular Retractor System and FastSystem Stoney Peripheral Vascular Retractor System products
    Case No. 5:11-cv-00010-DF

  • More News