Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas

MARSHALL DIVISION

Sept. 9 

• Stutts v Breezer Holdings LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00878

Plaintiff Tommy Stutts is an individual residing in Henderson County, Texas.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 6,789,787 issued Sept. 14, 2004, for a Portable, Evaporative Cooling Unit Having a Self-Contained Water Supply. Tommy Stutts is the current owner of all rights, title and interest of the ‘787 Patent, according to the suit.

Defendant Breezer is accused of infringing the ‘787 Patent by making, selling, supplying or using portable cooling equipment, including the Power Breezer Mobile Cooling Device.

Mr. Stutts is seeking a permanent injunction against defendant, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial demanded.

Stafford Davis of Tyler is representing Stutts.

 

• Adrain v Avigilon Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00879

• Adrain v General Motors LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00893

Plaintiff John B. Adrain is an individual and inventor residing in Spokane, Wash.

Adrain claims he is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,831,669 issued Nov. 3, 1998, for a Facility Monitoring System with Image Memory and Correlation. Re-examination certificates for the ‘669 Patent were issued on Aug. 21, 2012, and June 16, 2014.

Defendant Avigilon allegedly infringe the ‘669 Patent by making, selling, importing or using video surveillance cameras, software and network recorders that monitor a space and that perform video analytics. Defendant Avigilon’s security monitoring systems include at least such features as the detection of too many/too few objects in a space, tripwire, object addition/removal, object loitering and movement in a prohibited direction, according to the complaint.

Defendant GM allegedly infringes the ‘669 Patent by selling vehicles that are equipped with monitoring systems that generally include components such as a movably mounted digital camera that outputs digital image data, computer equipment that processes and stores various image data and an output interface (such as on a the vehicle dashboard) for reporting results of comparisons of image data.

Mr. Adrain is seeking a permanent injunction against defendants, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and all other relief deemed just and proper by the court. A jury trial is demanded.

Adrain is represented by Elizabeth DeRieux, S. Calvin Capshaw and Jeffrey Rambin of Capshaw DeRieux LLP in Gladewater; John Polasek, C. Dale Quisenberry and Jeffrey S. David of Polasek Quisenberry & Errington LLP of Bellaire; Otis. W. Carroll and Deborah Race of Ireland Carroll & Kelley PC in Tyler; and Russell R. Smith of Fairchild Price Haley & Smith LLP in Nacogdoches.

 

Sept. 10

• TLIF LLC v Aesculap Implant Systems LLC and Aesculap Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00881

• TLIF LLC v Alphatec Holdings Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00882

• TLIF LLC v Biomet Inc., EBI LLC dba Biomet Spine & Bone Healing Tech and Biomet Spine LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-883

• TLIF LLC v LDR Holding Corp. Case No. 2:14-cv-00884

Plaintiff TLIF is a Texas company with a place of business in Tyler.

According to the suits, U.S. Patent No. 6,143,032 was issued Nov. 7, 2000, for an Intervertebral Implant to inventors Bernd Schafer and Dr. Henry Halm. Schafer was founder of Schafer Micomed GmbH and Dr. Halm was senior consultant of the Department for Spine Surgery at the Medical Center of Neustadt/Holstein and previously senior physician at the University of Munster, Spine Service of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, the suits state.

The ‘032 Patent was assigned to Schafer Micomed GmbH in Goppingen, Germany, which then commercialized and sold the patented product as the TIF-Cage. DePuy Spine SARL acquired the ‘032 family as part of its acquisition of the assets of Schafer Micomed and Mr. Schafer. The patent assignment to DePuy Spine was recorded Nov. 30, 2004, according to the complaints. The ‘032 Patent family was then acquired by Orthophoenix LLC in a transaction with DePuy Synthes in July 2014 and then acquired by TLIF on Sept. 9, 2014.

Defendants allegedly infringing products include the Aesculap’s T-Space PEEK Interbody System, Biomet’s Zystron Curve Interbody Spacer.

TLIF is seeking compensatory damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, interest and other relief deemed just and proper by the court. A jury trial is demanded.

The plaintiff is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview; and Thomas C. Wright, Martin E. Rose and M. Ross Cunninham of Rose Walker LLP in Dallas.

 

Sept. 11

• BSG Tech LLC v Folica Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00885

• BSG Tech LLC v HM Wallace Inc. dba NationalBuilderSupply.com Case No. 2:14-cv-00887

• BSG Tech LLC v ModCloth Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00886

• BSG Tech LLC v Shopperschoice.com LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00888

• BSG Tech LLC v VMR Products LLC dba v2cigs.com Case No. 2:14-cv-00889

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

The patents-in-suit are:

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

According to court papers, the ‘294 Patent has been cited as prior art during the prosecution history of many subsequently-issued United States patents, including patents assigned to IBM, Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corp., Accenture LLP, SAP, AG, Google Inc. and The Nielsen Co.

• U.S. Patent No. 6,195,652 issued Feb. 27, 2001, for a Self-Evolving Database and Method of Using Same. According to the suit, the ‘652 Patent has been cited as prior art during the prosecution history of many subsequently-issued patents assigned to Amazon.com Inc., Lycos.com, Hewlett-Packard Development Co. LP, IBM, Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., Texas Instruments Corp., Oracle International Corp. and Google Inc.

• U.S. Patent No. 6,243,699 issued June 5, 2001, for Systems and Methods of Indexing and Retrieving Data. According to the suit, the ‘699 Patent has been cited as prior art during the prosecution history of many subsequently-issued United States patents including patents assigned to IBM, Palm Inc. SAP AG and Microsoft Corp.

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

BSG Tech is represented by David R. Bennett of Direction IP Law in Chicago.

 

• MXGO Technologies Inc. v AOL Inc. Case No. 2:14-cv-00890

Plaintiff MXGO has a place of business in Santa Clara, Calif.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,546,351 issued June 9, 2009, for Methods and Systems for Filtering, Sorting and Dispatching Messages to Wired and Wireless Devices;

U.S. Patent No. 6,779,022 issued Aug. 17, 2004, for a Server that Obtains Information from Multiple Sources, Filters Using Client Identities and Dispatches to Both Hardwired and Wireless Clients; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,062,538 issued June 13, 2006, for a Server that Obtains Information from Multiple Sources, Filters Using Client Identities and Dispatches to Both Hardwired and Wireless Clients.

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

Stephen F. Schlather of Collins Edmonds Pogorzelski Schlather & Tower PLLC in Houston is lead attorney for the plaintiff.

 

• iSourceloans LLC v Caliber Home Loans Inc. and Caliber Funding LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-00891

According to the suit, the center of the dispute is technology related to mortgage loans and a method and system for a loan broker to enable real estate agents, mortgage bankers, mortgage brokers, banks, institutions, certified public accountants, attorneys, home builders, direct consumers and other mortgage and non-mortgage related persons to originate a real estate loan or mortgage transaction for potential home buyers or owners that is compliant with certain federal and state regulations, including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

At present, almost all loan applications are submitted to an automated underwriting system, with many lending institutions having their own internal underwriting system and others using third-party underwriting systems, such as Freddie Mac Loan Prospector, Fannie Mae Desktop Originator and Fannie Mae Desktop Underwriter.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,351,841 issued Jan. 1, 2008, for a Mortgage Loan and Financial Services Data Processing System;

U.S. Patent No. 7,340,435 issued March 4, 2008, for a Mortgage Loan Data Processing System and Method for a Loan Broker; and

U.S. Patent No. 8,527,402 issued Sept. 3, 2013, for a Mortgage Loan Data Processing System and Method for a Loan Broker.

According to the suit, Caliber is a mortgage lender and agency direct seller/servicer and has offices in Irving.

iSource is seeking compensatory damages no less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages for willful infringement, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, injunctive relief and other relief deemed just and proper. A jury trial is demanded.

George T. Scott of Sheridan Ross PC in Denver, Colo., is representing the plaintiff. Robert R. Brunelli and Benjamin B Lieb of Sheridan Ross PC are of counsel.

 

Sept. 12

• Industrial Print Technologies LLC v ONeil Data Systems Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. Case No. 2:14-cv-00892

Plaintiff Industrial Print Technologies is a Texas corporation in the business of licensing patented technology owned by Forrest P. Gauthier.

According to the suit, the patented technology relates to industrial ink jet printing presses and provides systems and methods for controlling multiple inkjet printheads arranged within an inkjet printing press.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,145,946 issued Nov. 14, 2000, for a Method for Generating a Stroke Frequency Signal on a Plurality of Ink Jet Printheads; and

U.S. Patent No. 6,493,106 issued Dec. 10, 2002, for a Method for Synchronizing Pixel Deposition Frequencies Between a Plurality of Print Engines.

According to the complaint, the patents were issued to inventors Forrest P. Gauthier and Dimitrije L. Jovic. They assigned the patents to Varis Corp. which then assigned the patents to Tesseron Ltd. Tesseron subsequently assigned all rights to the patents to Forrest P. Gauthier. Gauthier assigned them to Acacia Research Group and granted ARG the right to assign to its affiliate IPT.

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

Timothy P. Malone of Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery LLP in Chicago is lead attorney for the plaintiff along with T. John Ward Jr., J. Wesley Hill and Clair Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview.