<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"                      <p class=\"imgtitle\"></p>           PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES<br /><br /><strong>Marshall Division</strong><br /><br /><em>March 8</em><br /><br /><li><strong>RPost Holdings Inc. et al v. Privasphere AG</strong><br /><br />The plaintiffs are RPost Holdings Inc., RPost International Ltd. and RMail Ltd.<br /><br />The defendant is accused of infringing on: <br /><br /><li>U.S. Patent No. 6,182,219 issued Jan. 30, 2001, for Apparatus and Method for Authenticating the Dispatch and Contents of Documents; <br /><li>U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,928,365 issued Feb. 22, 2005, and for U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,867,278 issued July 27, 2004, for the mark Registered email for \"delivery of messages by electronic transmission to a designated recipient to provide results on a basis of equivalent to the results obtain by registered mail.<br /><br />The defendant is accused of willful infringement, willful use of false designations of origin, false descriptions and representations in violation of the U.S. Trademark Act, trademark dilution, violation of the U.S. Trademark Act, common law trademark infringement and dilution, unfair competition and damage to business reputation.<br /><br />The plaintiffs are asking for the court for an order enjoining the defendants from using similar trademarks and for an award of damages, costs, expenses, interest, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.<br /><br />The plaintiffs are represented by Winston O. Huff of Huff Legal Group in Plano. <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-00150<br /><br /><em>March 11</em><br /><br /><li><strong>Ogma v Apple Inc. et al.</strong><br /><br />Ogma is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Longview.<br /><br />The defendants Apple Inc., Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, HTC America Inc., Kyocera Communications Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc., Motorola Mobility Inc., Nokia Inc., Palm Inc., Pantech Wireless Inc., Pharos Science and Applications Inc., Research In Motion Corporation, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. and T-Mobile USA Inc.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,150,947 issued Nov. 21, 2000, for Programmable Motion-Sensitive Sound Effect Device.<br /><br />Ogma is asking the court for an award of damages, treble damages, court costs and attorney's fees.<br /><br />The plaintiff is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview; James C. Otteson, David A. Caine, Thomas T. Carmack and Xiang Long of Agility IP Law in E. Palo Alto, Calif.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge David Folsom is assigned to the case.<br /><br />Case No. 2:11-cv-00166<br /><br /><em>March 14</em><br /><br /><li><strong>Lone Star Document Management v. Motive Systems Inc. et al</strong><br /><br />Lone Star Document Management Inc. is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal office located in Plano.<br /><br />The defendants are Motive Systems Inc., Alfresco Software Inc., ITAZ Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Adlib Publishing Systems Inc. and Intelledox Pty. Ltd.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,918,082 for July 12, 2005, for Electronic Document Proofing System.<br /><br />The plaintiff is asking the court to issue a permanent injunction to prevent further acts of infringement and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, court costs and attorney's fees,<br /><br />Lone Star is represented by Steven N. Williams and Kenneth P. Kula of Kennedy Clark & Williams in Dallas. <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-00169-TJW<br /><br /><li><strong>Ogma v Apple Inc. et al.</strong><br /><br />Ogma is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business in Longview.<br /><br />The defendants are Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc., Motorola Mobility Inc., Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. and T-Mobile USA Inc.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent 5,825,427 issued Oct. 20, 1998, for Image Display System.<br /><br />Ogma is asking the court for an award of damages, treble damages, court costs and attorney's fees.<br /><br />The plaintiff is represented by Andrew W. Spangler of Spangler Law PC in Longview; James C. Otteson, David A. Caine, Thomas T. Carmack and Xiang Long of Agility IP Law in E. Palo Alto, Calif.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.<br /><br />Case No. 2:11-cv-00168<br /><br /><strong>Tyler Division</strong><br /><br /><em>March 7</em><br /> <br /><li><strong>Optical Communication Products Inc. v. Finisar Corp.</strong><br /><br />Plaintiff Optical Communication Products is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fremont, Calif.<br /><br />The defendant is accused of infringing the following patents-in-suit:<br /><br /><li>U.S. Patent No. 5,245,622 issued Sept. 14, 1993, for Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers with Intra-Cavity Structures; <br /><li>U.S. Patent No. 6,720,585 issued April 13, 2004, for Low Thermal Impedance DBR for Optoelectronic Devices; <br /><li>U.S. Patent No. 6,810,065 issued Oct. 26, 2004, for Low Electrical Resistance N-Type Mirrors for Optoelectronic Devices; <br /><li>U.S. Patent No. 6,816,642 issued Nov. 9, 2004, for Apparatus and Methods for Using Fiber Optic Arrays in Optical Communication Systems; and <br /><li>U.S. Patent No. 5,521,736 issued May 28, 1996, for Control Circuits for Parallel Optical Interconnects.<br /><br />The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction and for an award of damages, interest, attorney's fees and court costs.<br /><br />Optical Communication is represented by Thomas J. Friel Jr., Wayne O. Stacy, Sarah J. Guske and Eamonn J. Gardner of Cooley LLP in San Francisco, Calif.  <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-00104<br /><br /><em>March 9</em><br /><br /><li><strong>Aloft Media v. SAP AG et al</strong><br /><br />Plaintiff Aloft Media is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview.<br /><br />The defendants are SAP AG and SAP America Inc.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,712,107 issued May 4, 2010, for Message Integration Framework for Multi-Application Systems.<br /><br />The plaintiff is asking for an award of damages, costs, expenses, interest and royalties.<br /><br />Aloft Media is represented by Eric M. Albritton and Steve E. Edwards of Albritton Law Firm in Longview; T. John Ward Jr. and J. Wesley Hill of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview; and Danny L. Williams, J. Mike Amerson, Jaison C. John, Christopher N. Cravey, Matthew R. Rodgers, Michael A. Benefield and David Morehan of Williams, Morgan & Amerson in Houston.<br /><br />U.S. District Judge Leonard E. Davis is assigned to the case.<br /><br />Case No. 6:11-cv-00110<br /><br /><em>March 14</em><br /><br /><li><strong>TransData Inc. v. Denton County Electric Cooperative Inc. d/b/a CoServ Electric</strong><br /><br />TransData Inc. is a Texas corporation having a place of business in Carrollton.<br /><br />The defendant is accused infringing on U.S. Patent No. 6,903,699 issued June 7, 2005, for Wireless Communication Device for Electric Meter and Method of Manufacture Thereof; U.S. Patent No. 6,181,294 issued Jan. 30, 2001, and U.S. Patent No. 6,462,713 issued Oct. 8, 2002, for Antenna for Electric Meter and Method of Manufacture Thereof.<br /><br />TransData is represented by Eric H. Findlay, Brian Craft and Joseph O. Seeber IV of Findlay Craft in Tyler; Paul R. Steadman, Matthew J. Hertko and Bradley W. Micsky of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, Ill.; and Robert G. Krupka of Kirkland & Ellis in Los Angeles, Calif.<br /><br />The plaintiff is asking the court to issue an injunction preventing further infringement and for an award of damages, interest, attorney's fees and interest.<br /><br />Jury trial is requested.<br /><br />Case No. 6:11-cv-00113<br /><br /><li><strong>Multiservice Solutions v. Cable One Inc. et al.</strong><br /><br />Multiservice is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business Frisco.<br /><br />The defendants are Cable One Inc., Cequel III Communications I d/b/a Suddenlink Communications, Comcast Corporation and Charter Communications.<br /><br />The defendants are accused of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,774,527 issued June 30, 1998 for Integrated telephone and cable communication networks and U.S. Patent No. 5,715,315 issued Feb. 3, 1998 for CATV systems.<br /><br />The plaintiff is asking the Court for an award of royalty, interest and court costs.<br /><br />Multiservice Solutions is represented by Eric M. Albritton and Stephen E. Edwards of Albritton Law Firm in Longview and Raymond W. Mort III and Adam G. Price of Dinovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy in Austin. A jury trial is requested.  <br /><br />Case No. 6:11-cv-00114<br />"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://setexasrecord.com/stories/510615383-recent-patent-infringement-false-patent-marking-cases-filed-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas>