Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Sept. 10-13, 2012:

Sherman Division

Sept. 13

Gemini IP v. Axence Software Inc. Case No. 4:12-cv-00589

Gemini IP v. BMC Software Inc. Case No. 4:12-cv-00590

Gemini IP v. Quest Software Inc. Case No. 4:12-cv-00591

Gemini is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,177,932 issued Jan. 23, 2001, for Method and Apparatus for Network Based Customer Services.

The plaintiff is asking the Court to issue a permanent injunction and an award of damages, costs, expenses, interest and attorney’s fees.

Gemini is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm in Longview. A jury trial is requested.

 

Tyler Division

Sept. 10

Blue Spike v. Fujitsu America Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00616

Blue Spike LLC is a Texas limited liability company and has its headquarters and principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,472 issued March 18, 2008, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; U.S. Patent No. 7,660,700 issued Feb. 9, 2010, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; U.S. Patent No. 7,949,494 issued May 24, 2011, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals; and U.S. Patent No. 8,214,175 issued July 3, 2012, for Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals.

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

Blue Spike is represented by Eric M. Albritton, Stephen E. Edwards and Michael A. Benefield of Albritton Law Firm in Longview and Randall T. Garteiser, Christopher A. Honea and Christopher S. Johns of Garteiser Honea P.C. in San Rafael, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Sept. 12

Clear with Computers v. AGCO Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00622

Clear with Computers v. Arctic Cat Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00623

Clear with Computers v. Astec Industries Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00624

Clear with Computers v. Clark Equipment Company d/b/a Bobcat Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-00625

Clear with Computers v. CNH America Case No. 6:12-cv-00626

Clear with Computers v. ECHO Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00627

Clear with Computers v. ET Works d/b/a Equipment Technologies Case No. 6:12-cv-00628

Clear with Computers v. Husqvarna Case No. 6:12-cv-00629

Clear with Computers v. JCB Manufacturing Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00630

Clear with Computers v. Kinze Manufacturing Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00631

Clear with Computers v. Kubota Tractor Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00632

Clear with Computers v. Swisher Acquisition Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00633

Clear with Computers v. Terex Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-00634

Clear with Computers v. Tracker Marine Retail et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00635

Clear with Computers is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,606,739 issued Oct. 20, 2009, for Electronic Proposal Preparation System and U.S. Patent No. 5,625,776 issued April 29, 1997, for Electronic Proposal Preparation System for Selling Computer Equipment and Copy Machines.

The plaintiff is asking the Court for an injunction and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, interest, enhanced damages and attorney’s fees.

Clear with Computers is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Longview, James A. Fussell III of Spangler & Fussell P.C. in Alexandria, Va., and Marc A. Fenster, Alexander C. Giza and Adam Hoffman of Russ, August & Kabat in Los Angeles, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

Sept. 12

The Regents of the University of California et al v. Facebook Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00619

The Regents of the University of California et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-00620

The Regents of the University of California et al v. The Walt Disney Co. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-00621

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

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906 issued Nov. 17, 1998, for Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985 issued Oct. 6, 2009, for Distributed hypermedia method and system for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document;

• U.S. Patent No. 8,082,293 issued Dec. 20, 2011, for Distributed hypermedia method and system for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document; and

• U.S. Patent No. 8.086,662 issued Dec. 27, 2011, for Distributed hypermedia method and system for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document.

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

The plaintiffs are represented by Mike McKool and Douglas Cawley of McKool Smith P.C. in Dallas. A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 6:11-cv-00646

More News