Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION

May 5 

Hilltop Technology LLC v Hannstar Display Corp. and Hannspree North America Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00590

Plaintiff Hilltop Technology is a Texas limited liability company.

Hannstar is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,864,503 issued Jan. 4, 2011, for a Capacitive Type Touch Panel.

“The ‘503 Patent is directed to a capacitive type touch panel having a transparent substrate having opposite top and bottom surfaces; an array of first and second conductors formed on said top surface of said transparent substrate; an array of second conductors; a plurality of spaced apart conductive first and second bridging lines,” the suit states.

Hannstar infringes the ‘503 by the making, using and selling of devices having touchscreen devices and modules, the plaintiff alleges.

Hilltop is seeking a permanent injunction against Hannstar, damages, costs, expenses, interest, attorneys’ fees and any other relief to which it may be entitled.

Winston O. Huff of W.O. Huff & Associates PLLC in Dallas is attorney in charge for the Hilltop.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.

 

ThinkTank One Research LLC v PLR IP Holdings LLC et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00591

ThinkTank is a Texas limited liability company based in Plano.

According to the complaint, the founders of ThinkTank are pioneering designers of lighting equipment used in the motion picture, video and still photographic industries, and have been awarded multiple innovation honors, including the prestigious Emmy Award for their Light Emitting Diode (“LED”) based technologies.

“Unfortunately, ThinkTank’s founders/inventors have also experienced widespread unauthorized use of their patented inventions,” the complaint states.

The defendants named in the lawsuit are PLR IP Holdings LLC (Polaroid), C&A Marketing Inc., C&A Licensing LLC and Wolf Camera & Image.

They are accused of infringing on:

U.S. Patent No. 8,299,726 issued Oct. 30, 2012, for an Omni Voltage Direct Current Power Supply; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,960,920 issued June 14, 2011, for an Omni Voltage Direct Current Power Supply.

According to the suit, defendants C&A, Wolf and Polaroid infringe the ThinkTank patents through the manufacture, use and sales of Polaroid LED Camera Lights.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, injunctive relief, interest and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is requested.

Frederick G. Michaud of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Washington, D.C.; and S. Calvin Capshaw, Elizabeth DeRieux and D. Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater are representing ThinkTank.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy Payne for pretrial proceedings.

 

May 7

BSG Tech LLC v American Medical Services Inc. dba Alevastores.com Case No. 2:14-cv-00595

BSG Tech LLC v Beaucoup Wedding Favors Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00592

BSG Tech LLC v Christianbook.com LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00596

BSG Tech LLC v Coffee-Serv Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00597

BSG Tech LLC v Eastern Mountain Sports Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00593

BSG Tech LLC v Inteladerm LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00601

BSG Tech LLC v Konarqui Internet Services LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00602

BSG Tech LLC v Macys.com Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00598

BSG Tech LLC v P&M Solutions LLC dba DoMyOwnPestControl.com Case No. 2:14-cv-00594

BSG Tech LLC v Spiraledge Inc. dba SwimOutlet.com Case No. 2:14-cv-603

BSG Tech LLC v Toolup.com LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00604

Plaintiff BSG Tech is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano.

The defendants are accused of infringing on the following patents-in-suit:

U.S. Patent No. 6,035,294 issued March 7, 2000, for Wide Access Databases and Database Systems;

U.S. Patent No. 6,195,652 issued Feb. 27, 2001, for a Self-Evolving Database and Method of Using Same; and

U.S. Patent No. 6,243,699 issued June 5, 2001, for Systems and Methods of Indexing and Retrieving Data.

BSG Tech is seeking compensatory damages, costs, interest, injunctive relief and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is requested.

David R. Bennett of Direction IP Law in Chicago, Ill., is representing the plaintiff.

 

TYLER DIVISION

May 5

Mass Engineered Design Inc. v Dell Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00409

Mass Engineered Design Inc. v ErgoTech Group Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00412

Mass Engineered Design Inc. v Herman Miller Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00431

Mass Engineered Design Inc. v ISE Inc. et al Case No. 6:14-cv-00413

Mass Engineered Design Inc. v Planar Systems Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00414

Mass Engineered Design Inc. v Spaceco Business Solutions Inc. Case No. 6:14-cv-00411

Plaintiff Mass Engineered Designs is a Canadian limited liability company based in Ontario.

The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. RE 36,978 issued Dec. 5, 2000, for a Dual Display System. The ‘978 Patent was issued a Reexamination Certificate on May 10, 2011.

The patent deals with a stand to allow a computer to use two monitor displays.

Mass Engineered Designs is seeking compensatory damages, interest, a permanent injunction against defendants, treble damages if the infringement is found to be willful, costs, attorneys’ fees and other just and proper relief. A jury trial is requested.

The lead attorney for the plaintiff is John J. Edmonds of Collins Edmonds Pogorzelski Schlather & Tower PLLC in Houston along with Andrew Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview.

The cases have been assigned to District Judge Leonard E. Davis.

 

May 8

Vigilant Solutions Inc. and MBP Innovations LLC v MVConnect LLC and Recovery Manager Pro LLC Case No. 6:14-cv-00466

Plaintiff Vigilant Solutions is a California corporation having a principal place of business in Livermore, Calif. Plaintiff MBP Innovations is a California limited liability company with an address in Villa Park, Calif.

Defendants MVConnect and Recovery Manager are accused of infringing on:

U.S. Patent No. 7,711,150 issued May 4, 2010, for an Autonomous Wide-Angle License Plate Recognition System;

U.S. Patent No. 7,881,498 issued Feb. 1, 2011, for an Autonomous Wide-Angle License Plate Recognition System; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,009,870 issued Dec. 17, 2010, for an Autonomous Wide-Angle License Plate Recognition System.

The ‘150, ‘498 and ‘870 Patents were assigned to MBP by inventor James Simon.

According to the suit, the Accused Products include: any and all systems in which at least two cameras are mounted on a surveillance vehicle and capture license plate images and/or data from vehicles in traffic and work with a processor that uses character recognition to determine particular collected license plate numbers; surveillance vehicles with camera systems to capture license plate information of multiple moving target vehicles and providing a computer programmed to use the captured license plate information and alert the vehicle operator upon discovery of a potential problem related to one of the vehicles; and any and all systems in which at least one camera is mounted on a surveillance vehicle and captures license plate images from at least four vehicles in traffic and works with a processor that uses character recognition to determine particular collected license plate numbers and then alters the vehicle operator when a plate number matches a database entry relating to a possible law enforcement problem.

Accused Products therefore include at least MVTrac and Recovery Manager Pro, the suit claims.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, an injunction against defendants, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest and other just and proper relief.

Paul V. Storm, Sarah M. Paxson and Thomas G. Haskins Jr. of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP in Dallas are representing the plaintiff.