Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

Marshall Division 

Feb. 25

• Rotatable Technologies v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00177

Rotatable Technologies is a limited liability company with a principle place of business in Austin.

The defendants are Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., PlainsCapital Corp., Rackspace Hosting Inc., Schlumberger Technology Corp., Texas Instruments Inc. and TXU Energy Retail Co. LLC.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,326,978 issued Dec. 4, 2001, for Display Method for Selectively Rotating Windows on a Computer Display.

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

Rotatable Technologies is represented by Austin Hansley of Austin L. Hansley PLLC in Dallas.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Feb. 26

• Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. v. Finisar Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00178

Thomas Swan is a United Kingdom limited company.

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 8,335,033 issued Dec. 18, 2012; U.S.  Patent No. 8,089,683 issued Jan. 3, 2012; U.S. Patent No. 7,664,395 issued Feb. 16, 2010; and U.S. Patent No. 7,145,710 issued Dec. 5, 2006, for Optical Processing.

Swan is asking the court to enjoin the defendant from further infringement and for an award of damages, enhanced damages, attorney’s fees and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Ruffin B. Cordell, Lauren A. Degnan and Michael C. Tyler of Fish & Richardson PC in Washington, D.C., and Christopher G. Smith of Fish & Richardson PC in Dallas.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Feb. 28

• Lodsys Group v. 4imprint Inc. Case No. 2:13- cv-00186

• Lodsys Group v. BullionVault Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00187

• Lodsys Group v. Loews Hotels Holding Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00188

• Lodsys Group v. OpticsPlanet Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00189

• Lodsys Group v. Supervalu Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00190

• Lodsys Group v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-00191

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

The defendants are accused of willful infringement.

The patents at issue include U.S. Patent 7,620,565 issued Nov. 17, 2009, for Customer-Based Product Design Module and U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078 issued May 22, 2007, for Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network.

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

The plaintiff is represented by William E. Davis III of the Davis Law Firm in Longview and Michael A. Goldfarb and Christopher M. Huck of Kelley, Donion, Gill, Huck & Goldfarb in Seattle, Wash.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

• Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al Case No. 2:13-cv-00192

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,319,913 issued Nov. 20, 2001, for Penetration Enhancing and Irritation Reducing Systems and U.S. Patent No. 6,579,865 issued June 17, 2003, for Penetration Enhancing and Irritation Reducing Systems.

The lawsuit is seeking an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damage, treble damages, interest, attorney’s fees and court costs.

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

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

 

Sherman Division

Feb. 25

• Vincent Valentine v. Robert Allen and StoneEagle Services Inc. Case No. 4:13-cv-00104

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,792,686 B2 and 8,249,893.

Valentine seeks to correct the inventorship in the two patents.

Each of the patents omits the name of Vincent Valentine as co-inventor, though each recites that he was the first to conceive of and shared his conception with the co-inventors named on the patents.

The plaintiff and defendant are involved in other litigation, StoneEagle Services Inc. and VPay Inc. v. Jim Valentine and Vincent Valentine, Cause No. 11-11958, in the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.

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

Valentine is represented by Shawn E. Tuma of BrittonTuma in Plano and Danise A. McMahon of Ferguson Law Group PC in Plano.

A jury trial is requested.

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

 

Tyler Division

Feb. 25

• SmartPhone Technologies v. Apple Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00196

• SmartPhone Technologies v. LG Electronics Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00197

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

The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,076,275 issued for Method And System For Single-Step Enablement Of Telephony Functionality For A Portable Computer System;

U.S. Patent No. Issued for Handheld Computer System That Attempts To Establish An Alternative Network Link Upon Failing To Establish A Requested Network Link;

U.S. Patent No. 7,533,342 issued for System And Method Of A Personal Computer Device Providing Telephone Capability; and

U.S. Patent No. 40,459 Method And Apparatus For Communicating Information Over Low Bandwidth Communications Networks.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction to prevent further infringement and for an award of damages, royalties and interest.

SmartPhone is represented by Paul J. Hayes and Dean G. Bostock of Hayes Bostock & Cronin in Andover, Mich., and T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

 

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case No. 6:13-cv-00198

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Fandango Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00199

• MacroSolve Inc. v. GameStop Corp. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00200

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Gilt Groupe Holdings Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00201

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Kohl’s Department Stores Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00202

• MacroSolve Inc. v. The Kroger Co. Case No. 6:13-cv-00203

Feb. 26

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Nordstrom Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00204

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc. Case No. 6:13-cv-00205

• MacroSolve Inc. v. RueLaLa Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00206

• MacroSolve Inc. v. Staples Inc. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00207

MacroSolve is an Oklahoma corporation with a principal place of business in Tulsa, Okla.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,822,816 issued for Oct. 26, 2010, for System and Method for Data Management.

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

MacroSolve is represented by Matthew J. Antonelli, Zachariah S. Harrington, Larry D. Thompson Jr. and Califf T. Cooper of Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson in Houston.

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider is assigned to the cases.

 

Feb. 28

• Fractus S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al Case No. 6:13-cv-00210

Fractus S.A. is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Barcelona, Spain.

The patents at issue are for a Multilevel Antennae and include the following:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,015,868 issued March 21, 2006;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,123,208 issued Oct. 17, 2006;

• U.S. Patent No. 7,394,432 issued July 1, 2008; and

• U.S. Patent No. 7,397,431 issued July 8, 2008.

The parties were involved in a previous litigation, Fractus S.A. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 6:09-cv-203, in which Fractus alleged that Samsung infringed on the same patents-in-suit.

That case went to trial and on May 23, 2011. the jury found in favor of Fractus. The jury awarded damages to Fractus in the amount of $23,129,321, with the District Court awarding $15 million in enhanced damages for willful infringement.

The court amended its final judgment and ordered Samsung to pay an ongoing royalty rate of 60 cents per phone on all adjudicated phones.

Fractus is asking the court to enjoin the defendant from further infringement and for an award of damages, enhanced damages, interest, attorney’s fees and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Max L. Tribble Jr. and Matthew Behncke of Susman Godfrey LLP in Houston; Justin A. Nelson, Genevieve Vose and Daniel J. Shih of Susman Godfrey LLP in Seattle, Wash.; Michael F. Heim and Micah J. Howe of Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP in Houston; T. John Ward Jr. and Jack Wesley Hill of Ward and Smith Law Firm in Longview; and S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and Daymon Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux in Longview.

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