Thursday, May 28, 2015

Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. v. Roof Systems Germany

Case Name: Inalfa Roof Systems, Inc. v. Roof Systems Germany
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12548
Date Filed: 6/13/2011
Judge: Hon. Julian A. Cook
Status: Closed

Inalfa Roof Systems (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Roof Systems Germany GmbH; Meritor, Inc.; Inteva Products, LLC; and Inteva Products USA, LLC (“Defendants”) for declaratory judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,178,862 (“the ‘862 patent”), entitled “Sliding Roof System.” The ’862 patent was based off of European Patent EP1586457B1, and Plaintiff claimed that the patentability of the European patent was contested. Plaintiff asserted that it had received a letter from Defendants, claiming ownership of the patent and contending that the actions of Plaintiff in manufacturing and selling the Cadillac SRX Sliding Roof System in the U.S. constituted a violation of Defendants’ patent. Plaintiff alleged that the European patent and the ’862 patent were invalid and requested that the court declare that the patent was invalid and award Plaintiff attorney fees incurred as a result of Defendants’ improper demand. On May 10, 2012, the parties entered a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice with the District Court.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Cheetah Omni, LLC v.Tellabs, Inc.

Case Name: Cheetah Omni, LLC v. Tellabs, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12429
Date Filed: 6/3/2011
Judge: Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
Status: Closed

On June 3, 2011 Cheetah Omni, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Tellabs, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,940,647 (“the ‘647 patent”), entitled “Apparatus and Method for Controlling Polarization of an Optical Signal,” and 6,856,459 (“the ‘459 patent”), entitled “Apparatus and Method for Controlling Polarization of an optical Signal.” The ‘647 patent generally relates to the polarization of one or more optical signals.

On July 29, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without. The court subsequently issued an Order of Dismissal without prejudice on August 8, 2011.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Cheetah Omni, LLC v. Fujitsu Network Communications Inc.

Case Name: Cheetah Omni, LLC v. Fujitsu Network Comm’ns Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12427
Date Filed: 6/3/2011
Judge: Hon. George Caram Steeh
Status: Closed

On June 3, 2011 Cheetah Omni, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Fujitsu Network Communications Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,888,661 (“the ‘661 patent”), entitled “Square Filter Function Tunable Optical Devices.” Plaintiff alleged that Defendant was infringing on the patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing in the U.S. certain optical processing technology, including, but not limited to, the Flashwave 9500 Reconfigurable Optical Add Drop Multiplexer. Plaintiff sought, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Ideal Shield, Inc. v. Strike Tool, Inc.

Case Name: Ideal Shield, Inc. v. Strike Tool, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12414
Date Filed: 6/3/2011
Judge: Hon. Robert H. Cleland
Status: Closed

On June 3, 2011, Ideal Shield, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Strike Tool, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D465,585 generally relating to a stanchion cover. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s making, using, and selling and/or offering to sell a product called the “EZ Sleeve” infringed  the ‘585 patent and U.S. Utility Patent No. 6,209,276 (“the ‘276 patent”), entitled “Installing a Sleeve onto an Elongated Member.” The ‘276 patent generally relates to a protective covering and a method of installing a sleeve over an elongated ember such as a rigid vertical post, stanchion, and the like.

Plaintiff filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice on September 27, 2011. The court subsequently issued an Order dismissing the case on September 29, 2011.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership

Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12349
Date Filed: 5/25/2011
Judge: Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Status: Closed

On May 25, 2011, Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,606,361 (“the ‘361 patent”) and 5,724,092 (“the ‘092 patent”).  The ‘361 and ‘092 patents generally covered different interactive mailbox facilities that could be utilized by videophones. “Videophones” are 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 include 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 and that Defendant induced infringement and/or engaged in acts of contributory infringement. Plaintiff explained that Defendant infringed on the patents by providing customers with the following mailbox facility systems that were accessible via videophone: a video on-demand service for users to view TV episodes and sporting events; a mobile music service for users to view and use music and music videos; a V Cast media manager service for users to view and use various media content; and a Media Store service for users to view and use ringtones, games, and other applications. On October 18, 2011, the District Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12348
Date Filed: 5/25/2011
Judge: Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Status: Closed

On May 25, 2011, Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Google, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,606,361 (“the ‘361 patent”) and 5,724,092 (“the ‘092 patent”). The ‘361 and ‘092 patents generally covered different interactive mailbox facilities that could be utilized by videophones. “Videophones” are 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 include 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 and that Defendant induced infringement and/or engaged in acts of contributory infringement. Plaintiff explained that Defendant infringed on the patents by providing an application service for users to view, download, and use applications, music and books on their videophones; the system included a central data center that processed information, and facilitated and supported the purchase and delivery of applications and other products.

Plaintiff asked for the following relief: a permanent injunction, damages, treble damages for Defendant’s 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.

On November 22, 2011, the District Court issued a Stipulation and Order Transferring Action to Northern District of California.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. U.S. Cellular Corporation

Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. U.S. Cellular Corporation
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12313
Date Filed: 5/25/2011
Judge: Hon. Julian A. Cook
Status: Closed

On May 25, 2011, Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against U.S. Cellular Corporation (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,606,361 (“the ‘361 patent”) and 5,724,092 (“the ‘092 patent”). The ‘361 and ‘092 patents generally covered different interactive mailbox facilities that could be utilized by videophones. “Videophones” is “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 and that Defendant induced infringement and/or engaged in acts of contributory infringement. Plaintiff explained that Defendant infringed on the patents in the following ways: Defendant provided a mobile TV and video service that acted as a mailbox facility system that users could access on their videophones; Defendant provided a mobile music service that acted as a mailbox facility system that users could access on their videophones; Defendant provided a Video Clips service that acted as a mailbox facility system; and Defendant provided a service called easy edge that acted as a mailbox facility system for users to view and use ringtones, games, videos and other applications on their videophones. Plaintiff asked for the following relief: a permanent injunction, damages, treble damages for Defendant’s 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. .On August 2, 2011, the District Court issued a Stipulated Order for Transfer of Case, explaining that the parties jointly came to the conclusion that the Northern District of Illinois was a more appropriate venue.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12310
Date Filed: 5/25/2011
Judge: Hon. David M. Lawson
Status: Closed

On May 25, 2011, Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Apple, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of  U.S. Patent Nos. 5,606,361 (“the ‘361 patent”) and 5,724,092 (“the ‘092 patent”). The ‘361 and ‘092 patents generally cover different interactive mailbox facilities that could be utilized by videophones. “Videophones” is defined in the patents 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.

Defendant filed its Answer on July 15, 2011, asserting the following: (1) Defendant did not infringe on the ’361 patent; (2) the ’361 patent was invalid; (3) Defendant did not infringe on the ‘092 patent; and (4) the ‘092 patent was invalid. Defendant sought the following relief: (1) dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice; (2) dismissal of all remedies that Plaintiff requested; (3) entry of judgment on all of Defendant’s counterclaims in favor of Defendant; (4) attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses; and (5) any other relief the court found proper. Additionally, Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer Case on July 28, 2011, and a Motion to Dismiss on August 8, 2011.

On November 23, 2011, the parties filed a Stipulation to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California. On November 30, 2011, the court transferred the case to the Northern District of California.