PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES

Marshall Division

April 28

  • Rembrandt Vision Technologies v. Coopervision Inc.

    Plaintiff Rembrandt Vision is a New Jersey limited partnership with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,712,327 issued Jan. 27, 1998, for Soft Gas Permeable Contact Lens Having Improved Clinical Performance.

    The plaintiff is asking the Court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees.

    Rembrandt Vision is represented by Lawrence Germer and Charles W. Goehringer Jr. of Germer Gertz in Beaumont and Jake M. Holdreith, Diane Simerson, Glenna Gilbert and Patrick M. Arenz of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in Minneapolis, Minn.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:11-cv-00236

    April 29

  • RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Dmitry Kagan

    The plaintiffs are RPost Holdings Inc., RPost International Limited and RMail Limited.

    The defendant is accused of infringing on:

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,182,219 issued Jan. 30, 2001, for Apparatus and Method for Authenticating the Dispatch and Contents of Documents;
  • U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,928,365 issued Feb. 22, 2005; and
  • U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,867,278 issued July 27, 2004, for the mark Registered email for "delivery of messages by electronic transmission to a designated recipient to provide results on a basis of equivalent to the results obtain by registered mail.

    The defendant is accused of willful infringement, willful use of false designations of origin, false descriptions and representations in violation of the U.S. Trademark Act, trademark dilution, violation of the U.S. Trademark Act, common law trademark infringement and dilution, unfair competition and damage to business reputation.

    The plaintiffs are asking for the Court for an order enjoining the defendants from using similar trademarks and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, interest, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.

    The plaintiffs are represented by Winston O. Huff of Huff Legal Group in Plano and Lewis E. Hudnell III of Hudell Law Group in New York, N.Y.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 2:11-cv-00238

    Tyler Division

    April 25

  • Eidos Display and Eidos Display III v. AU Optronics Corp. et al

    The plaintiffs are Delaware corporations, with principal place of businesses in Washington, D.C.

    The defendants are AU Optronics Corp., AU Optronics Corp. America, Chi Mei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA Inc., Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., HannStar Display Corp. and Hannspree North America Inc.

    The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,879,958 issued March 9, 1999, for Method of Producing an Electro-Optical Device. The patent relates to technology that describes an improved method of producing Liquid Crystal Display ("LCD") products that reduces the number of photolithographic steps and thereby improves yield and decreases manufacturing costs.

    Eidos is asking the Court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of monetary relief, interest and attorney's fees.

    The plaintiff is represented by Jennifer Parker Ainsworth of Wilson, Robertson & Cornelius in Tyler and Gaspare J. Bono and R. Tyler Goodwyn IV of McKenna Long & Aldridge in Washington, D.C.

    A jury trial is requested.

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

    Case No. 6:11-cv-00201

    FALSE PATENT MARKING CASES

    Marshall Division

    April 26

  • Plaintiff: Greenlight Research Labs LLC
    Plaintiff's Attorney: Scott E. Stevens, Gregory P. Love, Kyle J. Nelson; Stevens Love, Longview
    Judge: T. John Ward

  • Defendant: Fairchild Semiconductor Corp.
    Patents In Suit: U.S. Patent No. 4,364,073 and an additional 38 unlisted patents
    Patent Expiration Date: All 39 patents expired prior to 2009.
    Defendant's Falsely Marked Product:  the HGTG20N60A4D MOS gated high voltage switching device and the HGTG30N60C3D MOS gated high voltage switching device
    Case No. 2:11-cv-00233

  • More News