Thursday, April 30, 2015

Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. AT&T, Inc.

Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. AT&T, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12303
Date Filed: 5/25/2011
Judge: Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Status: Closed

Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against AT&T, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,606,361 and 5,724,092. The patents generally covered different interactive mailbox facilities that could be utilized by videophones. “Videophones” is defined as “any device having the capabilities to receive video/voice and or video/text as its primary function and which, in the future, may have additional capabilities added to it that will enable it to perform functions that a PC computer system performs today” and includes cellular videophones, wireless videophones and all videophones integrated with additional PC capabilities or technologies (i.e., disk storage, CDs, diskettes, and memory in megabyte range).

Plaintiff alleged that many of Defendant’s products infringed on Plaintiff’s patents by providing the following videophone-services: a mobile TV and video service, a mobile music service, a Media Net service, and a Media Mall services. Plaintiff asked for the following relief: a permanent injunction, damages, treble damages for intentional and willful infringement of the patents, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court saw as proper. The District Court filed an Order to Show Cause on June 3, 2011; that Order was withdrawn on that same day. On July 22, 2011, the court filed an Order for Dismissal without prejudice.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Crorey Creations, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case Name: Crorey Creations, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12265
Date Filed: 5/24/2011
Judge: Hon. Sean F. Cox
Status: Closed

Crorey Creations, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,946,631 (“the ‘631 patent”) generally related to devices and kits for making knotted string accessories, such as bracelets and necklaces. Specifically, Plaintiff developed a line of “My Friendship Bracelet Maker®” toy products for children. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant began producing and selling “the Friendship Bracelet Creator” and “the Travel Friendship Bracelet Maker,” both of which infringed on the patent.  On October 21, 2011, the court issued a Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudice pursuant to a Settlement Agreement between the parties.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Fleetilla, LLC v. PJC Logistics, LLC

Case Name: Fleetilla, LLC v. PJC Logistics, LLC
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12050
Date Filed: 5/10/2011
Judge: Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Status: Closed

In Fleetilla, LLC v. PJC Logistics, LLC, Fleetilla, LLC (“Plaintiff”) sought a declaratory judgment against PJC Logistics, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff developed, manufactured, and marketed fleet tracking systems for motor vehicles in the State of Michigan, including products and services marketed under the name “Fleetilla” and “FleetOrb.” Defendant owned U.S. Patent No. 5,223,844 (“the ‘844 patent”), entitled “Vehicle Tracking and Security System.” The ‘844 patent generally relates to a multi-featured system for monitoring the status of vehicles, detecting alarm conditions, monitoring the location of vehicles, and providing a variety of communication and control functions relating to the vehicles. On May 4, 2011, Defendant sent Plaintiff a demand letter, asserting that Plaintiff’s fleet management and tracking systems infringed upon the patent, and Defendant requested that Plaintiff purchase a license to “mitigate infringement of the patent.”

On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaration that: (1) Plaintiff had not infringed upon the patent; (2) the patent was invalid, (3) the patent was unenforceable; (4) Plaintiff was entitled to its costs; and (5) Plaintiff was entitled to such other relief that the court thought was appropriate. On August 2, 2011, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

C.F. Stinson, Inc. et al v. Mayer-Paetz, Inc.

Case Name: C.F. Stinson, Inc. et al v. Mayer-Paetz, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-11926-RHC-RSW
Date Filed: 5/2/2011
Judge: Hon. Robert H. Cleland
Status: Closed

On May 2, 2011, Plaintiffs C.F. Stinson, Inc. and Sample Technologies, LLC filed suit against Defendant Mayer-Paetz, Inc., doing business as Mayer Fabrics for patent infringement of Plaintiffs’ U.S. Patent No. 7,249,035 generally related to an automated software methodology and system for custom-labeling products in a supply chain, in its selling its “Textile 3D” technology.

Defendants never answered the Plaintiff’s complaint. On November 16, 2011, Judge Cleland dismissed the case pursuant to Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Futaba Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Keylex Corporation

Case Name: Futaba Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Keylex Corporation
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-11873-PJD-PJK
Date Filed: 4/28/2011
Judge: Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
Status: Closed

Plaintiff Futaba Industrial Co., Ltd. filed suit on April 28, 2011 against Defendant Keylex Corporation, alleging Defendant infringed upon U.S. Patent No. 6,615,489 entitled “Method of Manufacturing a Fuel Inlet,” a patent covering fuel inlets with improved anti-rust properties used for filling fuel into an automobile.

            Plaintiff alleged that Defendant sold infringing fuel inlets to auto manufacturers in Japan, including Mazda Motor Corporation. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for various reasons including jurisdiction. Judge Duggan denied both defendants’ motions. About two weeks after the court’s ruling on the motion, the parties agreed to dismissal on February 24, 2012.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Ticket Doctor, Inc. v. Cordes et al

Case Name: Ticket Doctor, Inc. v. Cordes et al
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-11586-PDB-RSW
Date Filed: 4/13/2011
Judge: Hon. Paul D. Borman
Status: Closed

Plaintiff Burch Enterprises, doing business as The Ticket Doctor, Inc., filed suit on April 13, 2011 against Defendant Mark S. Cordes, asking for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of Defendant’s U.S. Patent No. 7,153,254 (“the ‘254 patent”), generally relating to a presentation or pocket folder having attachable pockets for insertion of loose papers, fliers and brochures.

Plaintiff filed its complaint after receiving multiple cease-and-desist letters from Defendant alleging folders Plaintiff made infringed upon Defendant’s patent, despite Plaintiff’s belief that the folder had been in the public venue well before Defendant’s patent had been issued. Defendant answered with a counterclaim, alleging infringement of Defendant’s patent. Judge Borman ordered a stay on October 17, 2011 until the parties’ request to the USPTO to reexamine the patent was resolved. On April 30, 2013, Judge Borman ordered the case dismissed after the parties reached a settlement.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

StoneAge, Inc. v. NLB Corporation

Case Name: StoneAge, Inc. v. NLB Corporation
Docket Number: 4:11-cv-11278-MAG-MAR
Date Filed: 3/3/2011
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

Plaintiff StoneAge filed suit on August against Defendant NLB Corporation, alleging that Defendant infringed upon U.S. Patent Nos. 7,635,096 and D617,870 (“Patents-In-Suit”). The Patents-In-Suit generally relate to a high-pressure rotary nozzle and the ornamental design for a high pressure nozzle for cleaning pipes and tubes embodied in Plaintiff’s “Banshee” products.

Specifically, Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s “Typhoon 10” line of devices, particularly the RPN 2410 and the RPN 1510, infringed upon its patents. Plaintiff also contended that since Defendant had introduced its Typhoon devices into the market in August 2009, Plaintiff’s business suffered. In particular, Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s sales representatives had been offering to sell the infringing Typhoon devices to Plaintiff’s European customers and that Plaintiff’s customers had been cancelling orders for Banshee products, opting to purchase Typhoon products instead. Defendant denied any infringement and argued that Plaintiff’s patents were invalid and unenforceable. Judge Goldsmith ordered the case dismissed on January 5, 2012 due to a settlement reached between the parties shortly before a Markman hearing scheduled for December 15, 2011.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Wheeler v. Mathews, Inc. et al

Case Name: Wheeler v. Mathews, Inc. et al
Docket Number: 1:11-cv-11180-TLL-CEB
Date Filed: 3/23/2011
Judge: Hon. Thomas L. Ludington
Status: Closed

On March 23, 2011, Plaintiff Mark G. Wheeler filed suit against Defendants Mathews, Inc., Mathews Manufacturing, Inc., Mathews Sales & Distribution, Inc., and Mathew A. McPherson alleging that Defendants infringed upon his U.S. Patent No. 6,941,937 entitled "Compound archery bow construction and methods of making and operating the bow,” by selling “V-Lock” bow limb attachments covered by the patent. Judge Thomas L. Ludington and Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder presided.

On October 6, 2011, Judge Ludington dismissed the case due to the Plaintiffs failure to prosecute the case.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

United States ex rel Tetron, Inc. v. AJF, Inc.

Case Name: United States ex rel Tetron, Inc. v. AJF, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-11152-VAR-MKM
Date Filed: 3/21/2011
Judge: Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
Status: Closed

Relator and Plaintiff Tetron, Inc. filed suit on March 21, 2011, against Defendant AJF, Inc. for falsely marking an AVSM steel measuring device with Plaintiff’s expired U.S. Patent No. 4,968,007 (“the ‘007 patent”). The ‘007 patent generally relates to a metallurgic measuring device for use in steelmaking processes. On September 6, 2011, the case dismissed on after agreement by the parties.