Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Marshall Division 

Oct. 2

• InMotion Imagery Technologies v. Dell Inc.

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

InMotion Imagery accuses the defendant of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,526,219 issued Feb. 25, 2003, for Picture-Based Video Indexing System and U.S. Patent No. 8,150,239 issued for Picture-Based Video Indexing System.

The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from continued acts of infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, costs and attorney’s fees.

InMotion Imagery is represented by William E. Davis III of The Davis Firm in Longview, Douglas L. Bridges of Heninger Garrison Davis in Mobile, Ala., and Jacqueline K. Burt in Heninger Garrison Davis in Atlanta, Ga.

Jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:12-cv-00624

 

Oct. 2

• EON Corp. IP Holdings v. MetroPCS Communications Inc. et al

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

The defendants are MetroPCS Communications Inc. and MetroPCS Wireless Inc.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,388,101 issued Feb. 7, 1995, for Interactive Nationwide Data Service Communication System for Stationary and Mobile Battery Operated Subscriber Units; U.S. Patent No. 5,663,757 issued Sept. 2, 1997, for Software Controlled Multi-Mode Interactive TV Systems; and U.S. Patent No. 5,592,491 issued Jan. 7, 1997, for Wireless Modem.

The infringing products are related to two-way communication networks, associated services or data systems.

EON is asking the court to issue a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from continued acts of infringement and for an award damages, enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Daniel R. Scardino and Jason W. Deats of Reed & Scardino in Austin.  Jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstap is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:12-cv-00633

 

Oct. 4

• Sonic Industry v. Amegy Bank National Association Case No. 2:12-cv-00634

• Sonic Industry v. American Bank National Association Case No. 2:12-cv-00635

• Sonic Industry v. Compass Bank Case No. 2:12-cv-00636

• Sonic Industry v. Texans Credit Union Case No. 2:12-cv -00637

Sonic Industry is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Del.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,954,793 issued Sept. 21, 1999, for Remote Limit-Setting Information System.

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

Sonic Industry is represented by Austin L. Hensley of Austin L. Hensley Law Firm in Dallas.

A jury trial is requested.

 

• Case In Point et al v. Mermaid Manufacturing of Southwest Florida Inc.

Case In Point is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Sandy, Utah.  Med-Packs is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. Med-Packs owns and does business under the name Thomas Emergency Medical Solutions, which is a fictitious business name registered in Utah.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,061,149 issued Nov. 22, 2011, for Temperature Control Case.

The plaintiffs are asking for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, court costs and attorney’s fees.

Case In Point and Med-Packs are represented by March T. Rasich of Stoel Rives LLP in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Stafford Davis of The Stafford Davis Firm PC in Tyler.

A jury trial is requested.

Case No. 2:12-cv-00638

 

Sherman Division

Oct. 1

Maxim Integrated Products Inc. v. Citigroup Inc. et al Case No. 4:12-cv-00618

Maxim Integrated Products Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al Case No. 4:12-cv-00619

Maxim Integrated Products Inc. v. Target Corp. Case No. 4:12-cv-00620

Maxim Integrated Products Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp et al Case No. 4:12-cv-00621

Maxim Integrated Products Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Case No. 4:12-cv-00622

Maxim Integrated Products Inc. v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al Case No. 4:12-cv-00623

Maxim is a Delaware corporation with a place of business in Sunnyvale, Calif.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,940,510 issued Aug. 17, 1999, for Transfer of Valuable Information Between a Secure Module and Another Module;

• U.S. Patent No. 5,949,880 issued Sept. 7, 1999, for Transfer of Valuable Information Between a Secure Module and Another Module;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,105,013 issued Aug. 15, 2000, for Method, Apparatus, System, and Firmware for Secure Transactions; and

• U.S. Patent No. 6,237,095 issued May 22, 2001, for Apparatus for Transfer of Secure Information Between a Data Carrying Module and an Electronic Device.

Maxim Integrated Products is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, interest, treble damages and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law P.C. in Longview; James C. Otteson, Philip Marsh and Michael Nguyen of Agility IP Law in Menlo Park, Calif.; and Michael North of North Weber & Baugh in Palo Alto, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell is assigned to the cases.

 

Tyler Division

Oct. 2

• Landmark Technology v. Redbox Automated Retail

Landmark Technology is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tyler.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,576,951 issued Nov. 19, 1996, for Automated Sales and Services System and U.S. Patent No. 7,010,508 issued March 7, 2006, for Automated Multimedia Data Processing Network.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, reasonable royalty or lost profits, enhanced damages, court costs, attorney’s fees and interest.

Landmark Technology is represented by Charles Ainsworth and Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth P.C. in Tyler; and Stanley M. Gibson and Gregory S. Cordey of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP in Los Angeles, Calif.

A jury trial is requested.

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

Case No. 6:12-cv-00735