<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"                      <p class=\"imgtitle\"></p>           PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES<br /><br /><strong>Marshall Division</strong><br /><br /><em>Jan. 31</em><br /> <br /><li><strong>RPost Holdings Inc. et al. v. Zix Corp.</strong><br /><br />The plaintiffs are RPost Holdings Inc., RPost International Limited and RMail Ltd.<br /><br />The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,182,219 issued Jan. 30, 2001, for Apparatus and Method for Authenticating the Dispatch and Contents of Documents.<br /><br />The defendant's product ZixMail, a product that authenticate that a sender has electronically transmitted certain information via a dispatcher to a recipient, is allegedly infringing on the '219 patent.<br /><br />The plaintiffs are asking the Court to issue an injunction preventing the defendant from further infringement of the '219 patent and for an award of damages, treble damages, costs, expenses, interest and attorney's fees.<br /><br />RPost Holdings is represented by Winston O. Huff of Huff Legal Group in Plano. Additional counsel includes Lewis E. Hudnell III of Hudnell Law Group in New York.<br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.<br /><br />Case No. 2:11-cv-00064<br /><br /><em>Feb. 2</em><br /><br /><li><strong>Wi-LAN Inc. v. HTC Corp. et al.  </strong><br /><br />Plaintiff Wi-LAN is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Ottawa, Ontario.<br /><br />The defendants are HTC Corp., HTC America Inc., and Exedea Inc.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. RE37,802 issued July 23, 2002, for Multicode Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum; and U.S. Patent No. 5,282,222 issued Jan. 25, 1994, for Method and Apparatus for Multiple Access Between Transceivers in Wireless Communications Using OFDM Spread Spectrum.<br /><br />The plaintiff is asking the Court to issue an injunction preventing the defendants from further acts of infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages and interest.<br /><br />Wi-Lan is represented by Sam Baxter of McKool Smith in Marshall, Robert A. Cote and Benjamin J. Warlick of McKool Smith in New York and Dirk D. Thomas and Robert A. Auchter of McKool Smith in Washington, D.C.  <br /><br />Jury trial is requested.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.<br /><br />Case No. 6:10-cv-00068<br /><br /><em>Feb. 3</em><br /> <br /><li><strong>Ogma v. Activision Blizzard Inc. et al.</strong><br /><br />Plaintiff Ogma is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Longview.<br /><br />The defendants are Activision Blizzard Inc., Bensussen Deutsch & Associates Inc. d/b/a Power A, Griffin International Companies Inc. d/b/a Psyclone, Harmonix Music Systems Inc., Intec Inc., Jakks Pacific Inc., Lego Systems Inc., Nintendo of America Inc., Nyko Technologies Inc., Parrot Inc., Performance Designed Products, Playhut Inc. d/b/a Golive2, Rocky Mountain Radar Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., Source Audio, Mad Catz Inc., Vtech Electronics North America, Wowwee Group Ltd. and Wowwee Usa Inc.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6, 150,947 issued Jan. 3, 1989, for Programmable Motion-Sensitive Sound Effects Device.<br /><br />The plaintiff is asking the Court for an award of damages.<br /><br />Ogma is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview and by California attorneys James C. Otteson and Xiang Long.<br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />Case No. 2:11-cv-00075<br /><br /><strong>Sherman Division</strong><br /><br /><em>Jan. 31</em><br /><br /><li><strong>Bala Delay Line Inc. v. Xilinx Inc.</strong><br /><br />Plaintiff Bala Delay Line is a Pennsylvania corporation.<br /><br />The defendants are Xilinx Inc. and Bonser-Philhower Sales Inc.<br /><br />The defendant is accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,359,303 issued on Oct. 25, 1994, for FET Oscillator Using Voltage and Temperature Compensated Amplifier. The plaintiff was assigned the rights of the '303 patent on Feb. 23, 2010.<br /><br />The alleged infringing products include Xilinx's Field Programmable Gate Arrays such as Xilinx's Virtex, Artix, Kintex, and/or Spartan series of FPGA.<br /><br />The plaintiff argues the infringement is willful.<br /><br />Bala Delay Line is seeking an award of damages, enhanced damages, costs, attorneys' fees, interest and court costs.<br /><br />The plaintiff is represented by Guy E. Matthews, C. Vernon Lawson, Timothy W. Johnson and Matthew C. Juren of Matthews, Lawson & Johnson in Houston; Guy Fisher of Provost Umphrey in Tyler; and Jeffrey Hunt of Moore Landrey in Austin.  <br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge Richard Schell is assigned to the case.<br /><br />Case No. 4:11-cv-00046<br /><br /><strong>Tyler Division</strong><br /><br /><em>Jan. 31</em><br /><br /><li><strong>SIPCO v. Abb Inc. et al</strong><br /><br />SIPCO is a Georgia limited liability corporation with a place of business in McKinney. The company designs and develops wireless mesh networks.<br /><br />The Defendants are Abb Inc., Coulomb Technologies Inc., Ecotality Inc., Electric Transportation Engineering Corp. d/b/a Ecotality North America, Energyhub, Inc., Jetlun Corp., Ingersoll-Rand Co., Ingersoll-Rand Schlage Lock Holding Co., Schlage Lock Co., Trane Inc. and Smartlabs Inc.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of willfully infringing on the following patents:<br /><br />U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511 issued Sept. 5, 2006, for Wireless Communications Networks for Providing Remote Monitoring Devices; <br />U.S. Patent 6,437,692 issued Aug. 20, 2002; U.S. Patent No. 7,697,492 issued April 13, 2010, for System and Methods for Monitoring and Controlling Remote Devices.<br /><br />SIPCO is asking the Court to issue a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from further acts of infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest and attorney's fees.<br /><br />The plaintiff is represented by T. John Ward Jr. and Jack Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview. <br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.<br /><br />Case No. 6:11-cv-00048<br /><br /><em>Feb. 1</em><br /><br /><li><strong>SFA Systems v. Amazon.com Inc. et al</strong><br /><br />SFA is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall.<br /><br />The defendants are Amazon.com Inc., Bath & Body Works, BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP Inc., Buy.com Inc., Dick's Sporting Goods Inc., Dollar Tree Stores Inc., DSW Inc., General Nutrition Centers Inc., GSI Commerce Inc., Hasbro Inc., The J. Jill Group Inc., Kate Spade, Kenneth Cole Productions Inc., Meijer Inc., Menard Inc., New York & Co., Petsmart Inc., Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., Ralph Lauren Media, Rite Aid Corp. The Sports Authority Inc., Symantec Corp., The Talbots Inc., Target Corp., Tigerdirect Inc. and Zale Corp.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on U. S. Patent No. 6,067,525 issued May 23, 2000, for Integrated Computerized Sales Force Automation System.<br /><br />The plaintiff is asking for an award of damages, interest, attorney's fees and court costs.<br /><br />SFA is represented by Eric W. Buether, Christopher Joe and Brian A. Carpenter of Buether, Joe & Carpenter in Dallas. <br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.<br /><br />Case No. 6:11-cv-00052<br /><br /><em>Feb. 2</em><br /><br /><li><strong>Phil-Insul Corp.,d/b/a IntegraSpec v. Reward Wall Systems Inc. et al.</strong><br /><br />Plaintiff IntegraSpec is a Canadian corporation with a principal place of business located in Ontario, Canada.<br /><br />The defendants are Reward Wall Systems Inc., Buildblock Building Systems, Nudura Corp., Polyform, A.G.P. Inc. and Amvic Corp.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,428,933 issued on July 4, 1995, for Insulating Construction Panel or Block.<br /><br />The plaintiff is asking the Court to issue an injunction preventing further infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, attorney's fees and court costs.<br /><br />IntegraSpec is represented by Michael T. Cooke and David A. Skeels of Friedman, Suder & Cooke in Fort Worth. Additional counsel includes Paul Adams of The Adams Law Firm in New Mexico. <br /><br />A jury trial is requested.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.<br /><br />Case No. 6:11-cv-00053<br /><br />FALSE PATENT MARKING CASES<br /><br /><strong>Beaumont Division</strong><br /><br /><em>Feb. 1 </em><br /><br /><li><strong>Plaintiff: Promote Innovation LLC</strong><br />Plaintiff's Attorney: Larry D. Thompson, Jr., Zachariah S. Harrington, Matthew J. Antonelli; Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson, Houston<br />Judge: Ron Clark<br /><br /><li>Defendant: Recent Toys International BV and Recent Toys USA International<br />Patents In Suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 4,698,560 and 4,898,560<br />Patent Expiration Date: Oct. 6, 1991 and Feb. 6, 1994<br />Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: Mirrorkal 3D-Puzzle products<br />Case No. 1:11-cv-00046<br /><br /><strong>Texarkana Division</strong><br /><br /><em>Feb. 1</em><br /><br /><li><strong>Plaintiff: Texas IP Research</strong><br />Plaintiff's Attorney: Hao Ni; Ni Law Firm, Dallas. Tyler Brochstein; Brochstein Law Firm, Dallas.  Jack L. Siegel, Dallas.<br />Judge: David Folsom<br /> <br /><li>Defendant: Curtis Instruments Inc.   <br />Patents In Suit: U.S. Patent No. 4,626,750 issued on Dec. 2, 1986 for Solid State D.C. Motor Control,\"<br />Patent Expiration Date: The '750 Patent expired on Sept.10, 2005.<br />Defendant's Falsely Marked Product: Curtis Motor Controller Models 1204M/1205M, Curtis Motor Controller Model 1211, Curtis Motor Controller Model 1266 and Curtis Motor Controller Model 1268<br />Case No. 5:11-cv-00020<br /><br /><em>Feb. 4</em><br /> <br /><li><strong>Plaintiff: GHJ Holdings LLC</strong><br />Plaintiff's Attorney: Randall Garteiser, Christopher Johns; Garteiser Law Group, San Rafael, California.<br /> <br /><li>Defendant: Suncast Corp.  <br />Patents In Suit: Canadian Industrial Design Patent Nos. 85,479; 83,553; 83,554; and 83,555<br />Patent Expiration Date: The '479 patent expired Dec. 31, 2009. The '553, '554 and the '555 patent expired April 3, 2008.<br />Defendant's Falsely Marked Product:  snow STEELCORE Shovel and Pusher Model Nos. SN1070, SN1080, SC3270 and SP1580<br />Case No. 5:10-cv-00238-DF<br /><br />"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://setexasrecord.com/stories/510615074-recent-patent-infringement-false-patent-marking-cases-filed-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas>