Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Marshall Division 

Dec. 28

• Concinnitas v. Sierra Wireless SA et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00823

• Concinnitas v. Samsung TeleCommunications America et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00824

Concinnitas is a limited liability company with a principle place of business located in Marshall.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,805,542 issued Dec. 4, 2001, for Mobile United Attached in a Mobile Environment that Fully Restricts Access to Data Received via Wireless Signal to a Separate Computer in the Mobile Environment.

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

The plaintiff is represented by Hao Ni and Timothy T. Wang and Stevenson Moore V of Ni Law Firm PLLC in Dallas. Jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Light Transformation Technologies v. Lighting Science Group Corp. et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00826

• Light Transformation Technologies v. General Electric Co. et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00827

• Light Transformation Technologies v. Feit Electric Co. Inc. et al Case No. 2:12-cv-00828

Light Transformation Technologies LLC is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Frisco.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,220,959 issued July 17, 2012; U.S. Patent No. 6,951,418 issued Oct. 4, 2005; and U.S. Patent No. 6,543,911 issued April 8, 2003, for Highly Efficient Luminaire Having Optical Transformer Providing Precalculated Angular Intensity Distribution and Method Therefore.

Light Transformation is asking the court for injunction and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, fees and interest.

The plaintiff is represented by Henry M. Pogorzelski, Michael J. Collins, John J. Edmonds and Johnathan K. Yazdani of Collins, Edmonds & Pogorzelski, Schlather & Tower PLLC in Houston and Stafford Davis and The Stafford Davis Firm PC in Tyler.

A jury trial is requested.

 

Tyler Division

Dec. 26

• Brandywine Communications Technologies v. The David L. Aldridge Co. Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-01003

• Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Colorado Valley Communications Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-01004

• Brandywine Communications Technologies v. HyperUSA Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-01005

• Brandywine Communications Technologies v. TMN Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-01006

• Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Nova Internet Services Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-01007

• Brandywine Communications Technologies v. Texas Communications Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-01008

Plaintiff Brandywine is a Delaware limited liability company with a place of business in Villanova, Penn.

The defendants are accused of infringing on:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,206,854 issued on April 27, 1993, for Detecting Loss of Echo Cancellation;

• U.S. Patent No. 5,251,328 issued Oct. 5, 1993, for Predistortion Technique for Communications Systems;

• U.S. Patent No. 5,812,537 issued Sept. 22, 1998, for Echo Canceling Method and Apparatus for Data Over Cellular;

• U.S. Patent No. 5,828,657 issued Oct. 27, 1998, for Half-Duplex Echo Canceler Training Using a Pilot Signal;

• U.S. Patent No. 6,970,501 B1 issued Nov. 29, 2005, for Method and Apparatus For Automatic Selection and Operation of a Subscriber Line Spectrum Class Technology; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,894,472 B2 issued Feb. 22, 2011, for Method and Apparatus For Automatic Selection and Operation of a Subscriber Line Spectrum Class Technology.

Brandywine is seeking an award of damages, ongoing royalty, treble damages, interest, court costs and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by James C. Tidwell of Wolfe, Tidwell & McCoy LLP in Sherman.  A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Dec. 27

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-01013

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Bitdefender Case No. 6:12-cv-01014

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. PerkinElmer Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-01015

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. The MathWorks Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-01016

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. Nuance Communications Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-01017

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. TechSmith Corp. Case No. 6:12-cv-01018

• Uniloc USA Inc. et al v. The Tiffen Co. Case No. 6:12-cv-01019

Uniloc USA Inc. is a Texas corporation having a principal place of business in Irvine, Calif. Uniloc Singapore Private Ltd. is a Singapore corporation.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,857,067 for a System and Method for Preventing Unauthorized Access to Electronic Data.

Uniloc is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from further infringement and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, attorney’s fees and interest.

The plaintiffs are represented by Barry J. Bumgardner and Steven W. Hartsell of Nelson Bumgardner Castro P.C. in Fort Worth; James L. Etheridge of Etheridge Law Group in Southlake; and T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

Jury trial is requested.

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

 

Dec. 28

• Auto-Dimensions v. Autodesk Inc. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-01021

• Auto-Dimensions v. Dassault Systemes SolidWorks Corp. et al Case No. 6:12-cv-01022

• Auto-Dimensions v. Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. Case No. 6:12-cv-01023

Auto-Dimensions is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Frisco.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No.  5,655,095 issued for Method and System for Design and Drafting.

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

Auto-Dimensions is represented by John D. Fraser of Ferguson Law Group P.C. in Plano; and Robert R. Brunelli, John R. Posthumus and Sheridan Ross P.C. in Denver, Colo.

Jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Leonard E. David is assigned to the cases.

 

• LifeScreen Sciences v. Cordis Corp.

LifeScreen Sciences is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Frisco.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,709,704 issued Jan. 20, 1998, for Blood Clot Filtering.

LifeScreen Sciences is seeking an award of damages, treble damages, court costs, interest and attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Jonathan T. Suder and Brett M. Pinkus of Friedman, Suder & Cooke in Fort Worth.

A jury trial is requested.

Case No. 6:12-cv-01024