Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION

July 22 

• Star Co. Ranger Digital LLC v Microsoft Corp. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-00793

The plaintiff Star Co. Ranger Digital is a Texas limited liability company. It claims to own the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 8,694,694 issued April 8, 2014, for a Portable Memory Drive with Portable Applications and Cross-Computer System Management Application.

The defendants are accused of infringing the ‘694 Patent. Defendants named in the suit are Microsoft Corp., Imation Corp., Kingston Technology Co. Inc., American Airlines Inc., Black Knight Holdings Inc. and Black Knight Financial Services LLC.

The defendants allegedly infringe the ‘694 Patent by the use of Windows to Go.

Star Co. Ranger Digital is seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, enhanced damages, costs, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief as justice requires. A jury trial is demanded.

Christin Cho of Dovel & Luner LLP in Santa Monica, Calif., is representing the plaintiff.

 

July 24

• Bristol-Myers Squibb & Gilead Sciences LLC v Lupin Ltd. Case No. 2:14-cv-00795

According to the complaint, U.S. Patent No. 8,598,185 was issued Dec. 3, 2013, for a Unitary Pharmaceutical Dosage Form. The ‘185 Patent claims a unitary dosage form containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and efavirenz in physically discrete compartments and also containing emtricitabine for the purpose of treating HIV infection.

The named inventor of the ‘185 Patent are Terrence C. Dahl, Munir A. Hussain, Robert A. Lipper, Robert J. Jersewski, Mark M Menning, Reza Oliyai and Taiyin Yang. They assigned the ‘185 Patent to Bristol-Myers Squib and Gilead Sciences.

According to the suit, Lupin is seeking approval to make the tablets with the same medicinal combination prior to the expiration of the ‘185 Patent.

The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, attorney fees, treble damages, costs, expenses and other relief deemed proper. A jury trial is requested.

David Bassett of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLp of New York, N.Y., is lead attorney for the plaintiff, along with T. John Ward of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.

 

• Eclipse IP LLC v Deckers Outdoor Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00797

• Eclipse IP LLC v ABT Electronics Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00798

• Eclipse IP LLC v Ashford Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00799

Plaintiff Eclipse IP is a Texas limited liability  company with a place of business in Boynton Beach, Fla.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,479,899 issued Jan. 20, 2009, for a Notification System and Method Enabling a Response to Cause Connection Between a Notified PCD and a Delivery or Pickup Representative;

U.S. Patent No. 7,319,414 issued Jan. 15, 2008, for Secure Notification Messaging Systems and Methods Using Authentication Indicia; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,068,037 issued Nov. 29,2011, for Secure Notification Managing Systems and Methods Using Authentication Indicia.

On information and belief, Defendants have directly infringed and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘414 patent, by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling computer-based notification systems and methods to, for example: monitor travel data in connection with orders placed via Defendant’s website; communicate notifications regarding product delivery to customers; provide authentication information comprising at least a link to the Internet; and enable such customers to select the link to communicated with Defendant to authenticate the notification and/or the information contained therein.

Eclipse is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Craig Tadlock of the Tadlock Law Firm in Plano is representing the plaintiff. Matt Olavi and Brian Dunne of Olavi Dunne LLP in Los Angeles, Calif., are of counsel.

 

July 29

• CDR Printing LLC v FedEx Office and Print Services Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00801

• CDR Printing LLC v Canon USA Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00802

Plaintiff CDR Printing is a Texas limited liability company having a principal place of business in Austin.

The plaintiff is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 7,271,929 issued Sept. 18, 2007, for a System and Method for Integrated Printing and Assembly of Electronic Documents.

The defendant is accused of infringing the ‘929 Patent through various products including FedEx Office Print Online, Canon ImageWARE.

CDR Printing is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, costs, expenses, interest and other relief. A jury trial is demanded.

Neil G. Massand of Ni Wang & Massand PLLC in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

 

 

Beneficial Innovations Inc. v Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00803

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,183,366 issued Feb. 6, 2001, for an Advertising System for the Internet and Local Area Networks; and

U.S. Patent No. 6,712,702 issued March 30, 2004, for a Method and System for Playing Games on a Network.

Allegedly infringing products include www.msn.com and www.bing.com.

Beneficial Innovations is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, interest and other relief as justice requires.

Julien Adams of Dovel & Luner LLP in Santa Monica, Calif., is representing the plaintiff.

 

 

• CY Wong Intellectual Property LLC v Bulova Watch Co. Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00804

Plaintiff CY Wong is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Austin.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,322,915 issued Dec. 4, 2012, for a Compensation Adjustment Device for Mechanical Timepiece.

Defendant Bulova allegedly infringes the ‘915 Patent by making and selling the Bulova Accutron Calibrator family of watches.

CY Wong is seeking a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, costs, expenses, interest and other relief to which it may be entitled. A jury trial is demanded.

Hao Ni of Ni Wang & Massand PLLC in Dallas is representing the plaintiff.

 

July 30

• DiamondOP LLC v Guardian Industries Corp. (dba Guardian Industries and Guardian) Case No 2:14-cv-00805

Plaintiff DiamondOP has an address in Austin and a place of business in Berkeley, Calif.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,537,668 issued March 25, 2003, for Recording Media Having Protective Overcoats of Highly Tetrahedral Amorphous Carbon and Methods for their Production;

U.S. Patent No. 7,513,215 issued April 7, 2009, for Systems and Methods for the Production of Highly Tetrahedral Amorphous Carbon Coatings; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,931,748 issued April 26, 2011, for Systems and Methods for the Production of Highly Tetrahedral Amorphous Carbon Coatings.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, interest, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

John J. Edmonds of Collins Edmonds Pogorzelski Schlather & Tower PLLC in Houston is lead counsel for the plaintiff, with Andrew Spangler of Longview.

 

TEXARKANA DIVISION

July 21

• Peter F. Wingard v Crown Motor Co. Case No. 5:14-cv-00090

Plaintiff Peter F. Wingard is an individual residing in North Carolina. The suit states that he pioneered technology behind keyless ignition systems, which allow vehicle engines to be started with the use of a key code.  The keyless ignition is achieved when a key fob transmits a unique code to a car’s receiver and the unique code transmitted by the key fob matches the unique code stored in the car’s memory.

According to the suit, Wingard is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,530,431 issued June 25, 1996, for an Anti-Theft Device for Protecting Electronic Equipment. The ‘431 Patent is directed to a method to secure electronic equipment by configuring the electronic equipment to power up only in the presence of a unique code transmitted to the electronic equipment from an external source.

The defendant is accused of using or selling vehicles that infringe the ‘431 Patent.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest and other relief the court deems just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

Charlena Thorpe of The Law Office of Charlena Thorpe Inc. in Duluth, Ga., is representing Wingard.