MARSHALL DIVISION
May 2
MIRAGE IP LLC V. ANGIODYNAMICS INC. 2:17-cv-00377-JRG-RSP
MIRAGE IP LLC V. BIOTRONIK, INC. 2:17-cv-00378-JRG-RSP
MIRAGE IP LLC V. COOK MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 2:17-cv-00379-JRG-RSP
MIRAGE IP LLC V. MICROVENTION, INC. 2:17-cv-00380-JRG-RSP
MIRAGE IP LLC V. OSCOR INC. 2:17-cv-00381-JRG-RSP
MIRAGE IP LLC V. THE SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION 2:17-cv-00382-JRG-RSP
MIRAGE IP LLC V. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. 2:17-cv-00383-JRG-RSP
MIRAGE IP LLC V. STRYKER CORPORATION 2:17-cv-00384-JRG-RSP
The plaintiff Mirage IP is based in McKinney.
It asserts ownership of United States Patent Number 6,375,629, having pursued legal action in response to alleged infringement.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘629 patent, entitled “Core Wire with Shapeable Tip,” on Apr. 23, 2002.
Recent court documents state that the patent in question claims, among other things, “a core wire having proximal and distal sections comprising means for flexibility in the proximal section; and means for shapeability in the distal section, said shapeability means including a cold-worked tip.”
Mirage IP seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Attorneys Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola and Jean G. Vidal Font of the law firm Ferraiuoli LLC in San Juan, PR is representing the plaintiff.
May 3
OROSTREAM LLC V. AUTOTASK CORPORATION 2:17-cv-00387-JRG
OROSTREAM LLC V. SYNCPLICITY LLC 2:17-cv-00388-JRG
OROSTREAM LLC V. WORKSHARE TECHNOLOGY INC. 2:17-cv-00389-JRG
Plano-based Orostream is the plaintiff.
It alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,768,508, entitled “Computer Network System and Method for Efficient Information Transfer.”
Per recent court papers, the ‘508 patent was issued on Apr. 11, 1997. They also state that the subject patent “has been cited as prior art during the prosecution history of over 100 subsequently-issued (U.S.) patents, including patents assigned to IBM, Intel, Facebook, Gateway, Hitachi, Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle, and Veritas Software.”
Orostream seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Attorney David R. Bennett of the law firm Direction IP Law in Chicago is representing the complainant.