Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Optical Memory Storage, LLC v. CMC Magnetics Corporation

Case Name: Optical Memory Storage, LLC v. CMC Magnetics Corporation
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-13110
Date Filed: 7/20/2011
Judge: Hon. Julian A. Cook
Status: Closed

On July 20, 2011, Optical Memory Storage, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against CMC Magnetics Corp.; Hotan Corp.; Fujifilm Holdings Corp.; Fujifilm Holdings America Corp.; Fujifilm U.S.A., Inc.; Fujifilm Recordings Media U.S.A., Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Co.; Imation Corp.; Moser Baer India Limited; Ritek Corp.; Advanced Media, Inc.; Royal Philips Electronics N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corp.; Panasonic Corp.; Panasonic Corp. of North America; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,128,099 (“the ‘099 patent”), entitled “Congruent State Changeable Optical Memory Material and Device,” 6,011,757 (“the ‘757 patent”), entitled “Optical Recording Media Having Increased Erasability”; and 5,335,219 (“the ‘219 patent”), entitled Homogenous Composition of Microcrystalline Semiconductor Material Semiconductor Devices and Directly Overwritable Memory Elements Fabricated Therefrom, and Arrays From the Memory Elements.”

Plaintiff sought the following relief: a judgment that one or more of Defendants had infringed on one or more claims of the patents; a judgment that Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages and costs incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendants’ infringing activities; a judgment that Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff a reasonable, on-going, post judgment royalty because of Defendants’ infringing activities; that Defendants’ infringements be found to be willful from the time that Defendants became aware of the infringing nature of their respective products and services, so as to aware treble damages for the period of such willful infringement; and any other relief that the court found proper.

On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff entered a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice. The case was dismissed on January 26, 2012.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

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

Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-13106
Date Filed: 7/19/2011
Judge: Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Status: Closed

On July 19, 2011 by Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) against AT&T Mobility (“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 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. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant induced infringement and/or engaged in acts of contributory infringement. The case was eventually transferred to the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, on November 12, 2011.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Ford Motor Company v. Diesel Shield, LLC

Case Name: Ford Motor Company v. Diesel Shield, LLC
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-13012
Date Filed: 7/13/2011
Judge: Hon. Stephen J. Murphy
Status: Closed

On July 13, 2011 by Ford Motor Company and Martinrea International Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Diesel Shield, LLC and Peter Pulos (collectively, “Defendants”) for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,302,169 (“the ‘169 patent”), entitled “Diesel Fuel Nozzle Restrictor,” and lack of misappropriation for trade secret.

Ultimately, the parties settled and on April 3, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement. Subsequently, on April 30, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the case without prejudice.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

JAC-Rack, Inc. v. Unirac, Inc.

Case Name: JAC-Rack, Inc. v. Unirac, Inc.
Docket Number: 5:2011-cv-12992
Date Filed: 7/12/2011
Judge: Hon. John Corbett O'Meara
Status: Closed

On July 12, 2011 by JAC-Rack, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Unirac, Inc. (“Defendant”) for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,260,918 (“the ‘918 patent”), entitled “Apparatus and Method for Positioning a Module on an Object,” Patent No. 7,748,175 (“the ‘175 patent”), entitled “Method of Manufacturing and Installing a Low Profile Mounting System”; Patent No. 7,766,292 (“the ‘292 patent”), entitled “System for Mounting a Photovoltaic Module to a Surface”; and Patent No. 7,434,362 (“the ‘362 patent”), entitled “System for Removably and Adjustably Mounting a Device on a Surface,” owned by Defendant. Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, and sells commercial/residential solar mounting systems and, upon information and belief, controlled more than a 50% share of the commercial/residential solar-mounting systems market in the United States. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Plaintiff asked for the following relief: a judgment that Plaintiff did not infringe on Defendant’s patents; a judgment that Defendant’s patents were invalid; a permanent injunction against Defendant, preventing Defendant from bringing action against Plaintiff in the future with regard to Defendant’s patents; a judgment that Defendant attempted to enforce the ‘918 and ‘362 patents in bad faith; costs and attorneys’ fees; actual and compensatory damages; treble damages; and any other relief the court saw as proper. On December 13, 2011 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal with prejudice. On December 14, 2011, the court dismissed the suit.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Samsung Telecomm’ns America, LLC

Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Samsung Telecomm'ns America, LLC
Docket Name: 2:2011-cv-12945
Date Filed: 7/7/2011
Judge: Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Status: Closed
Disclosure: Dickinson Wright, PLLC is counsel for the Defendant in this case

On July 7, 2011, Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“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 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, including its 4G videophones, infringed on Plaintiff’s patents. Plaintiff also alleged 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 judgment that Defendant infringed, induced infringement, and contributed to the infringement of Plaintiff’s ’092 and ’361 patents; a permanent injunction; that defendant account for damages; that Defendant pay Plaintiff all damages necessary to compensate plaintiff, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the infringement of the patents; 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 December 21, 2011, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order Withdrawing Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike Affirmative Defenses. On February 21, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexamination of the ‘092 and ‘361 patents. On March 28, 2012, the court granted Defendant’s Motion to Stay, pending reexamination by the PTO of Plaintiff’s ‘092 and ‘361 patents. On April 3, 2013, the court entered an Order Lifting Stay. On December 27, 2013, the court entered a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Onstar, LLC v. Automotive Technologies Int’l, Inc.

Case Name: Onstar, LLC v. Automotive Technologies Int'l, Inc.
Docket Number: 4:2011-cv-12679
Date Filed: 6/20/2011
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

On June 20, 2011, Onstar (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Automotive Technologies Int’l, Inc. (“Defendant”) for declaratory judgment non-infringement and invalidity of Defendant’s U.S. Patent No.  (“the ‘756 patent”), entitled “Vehicle Communications Using the Internet.” This suit was filed in response to a then-current infringement case brought by Defendant against Plaintiff in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the New Jersey case, Defendant had accused Plaintiff of infringing on the patent through “a service that uses the Internet to transmit vehicle diagnostic information including crash notification information from a vehicle to a remote site.” On August 2, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Michigan case. On October 12, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Statement of Resolved and Unresolved Issues and Stipulated Motion to Defer Further Action. On January 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate and Reassign Cases to Judge Robert H. Cleland in View of Prior Related Cases. On January 13, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal. On January 18, 2012, the court entered an Order of Dismissal, where it dismissed all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff, without prejudice.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Norgren Automation Solutions, Inc. v. K & A Tool Company

Case Name: Norgren Automation Solutions, Inc. v. K & A Tool Company
Docket Number: 5:2011-cv-12608
Date Filed: 6/20/2011
Judge: Hon. John Corbett O'Meara
Status: Closed

On June 20, 2011, Norgren Automation Solutions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) against K & A Tool Company (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,071,309 (“the ‘309 patent”), entitled “Mounting Arrangement for a Multi-function Arm,” and 6,540,188 (“the ‘188 patent”), entitled “Mounting Arrangement for a Multi-function Arm.” Plaintiff asserted that Defendant infringed on the ‘409 and ‘188 patents by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling, without permission from Plaintiff, tooling arms that were especially designed, made, and adapted for use in a combination that falls within the scope of at least one claim of each of the patents. Plaintiff requested the following relief: a judgment declaring that Defendant infringed on both the ‘309 and ‘188 patents; an award of all damages that Plaintiff experienced as a result of Defendant’s infringement; costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; a preliminary and permanent injunction; an order requiring Defendant to turn over all remaining inventory of any infringing products; and any other judgment that the court found equitable.

On April 30, 2013, the court entered a Consent Judgment and Order, which: (1) held that Defendant had infringed on the ‘309 and ‘199 patents, but not willfully; (2) dismissed with prejudice Defendant’s defenses and affirmative defenses; (3) enjoined Defendant from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, or selling (except to sell to Plaintiff pursuant to a separate agreement between the parties) the infringing products; (4) held that both parties had waived their right to appeal; and (5) held that judgment was a final resolution to the action and that each party was to bear its own fees and costs in connection with the action, including attorneys’ fees.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Federal-Mogul World Wide, Inc. v. Rally Manufacturing, Inc.

Case Name: Federal-Mogul World Wide, Inc. v. Rally Manufacturing, Inc.
Docket Number: 5:2011-cv-12608
Date Filed: 6/15/2011
Judge: Hon. John Corbett O'Meara
Status: Closed
Disclosure: Dickinson Wright, PLLC is counsel to the Plaintiff in this case

On June 15, 2011, Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul World Wide, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) against Rally Manufacturing, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D372,012 (“the ‘012 patent”) entitled “Windshield Wiper Unit.” covering a unique eight-point design for a windshield wiper product. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant’s windshield wiper products, including the “All Seasons” wipers (models 21” and longer) and “Ultra Vision” wipers (models 21” and longer), infringed on the patent. Plaintiff sought the following relief: a declaration that Defendant infringed on the patent; damages; all appropriate relief, including treble damages; and all other relief that the court found equitable. On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Optical Memory Storage, LLC v. CMC Magnetics Corporation

Case Name: Optical Memory Storage, LLC v. CMC Magnetics Corporation
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12566
Date Filed: 6/13/2011
Judge: Hon. Julian A. Cook
Status: Closed

On June 13, 2011, Optical Memory Storage, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Fujifilm U.S.A., Inc.; Imation Corporation; Ritek Corporation; Advanced Media, Inc.; Moser Baer India Limited; Moser Baer Technologies, Inc.; CMC Magnetics Corporation; Royal Philips Electronics N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corp.; Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation; Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Co.; Hotan Corporation; and Fujifilm Holdings Corporation (“Defendants”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,128,099 (“the ‘099 patent”), entitled “Congruent State Changeable Optical Memory Material and Device.” Specifically, Plaintiff asserted  that the Defendants each infringed on the ‘099 patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing apparatuses that infringed on the patent, including, but not limited to, CD-RW, DVD-RW, DVD-RAM, Mini CD-RW, and BD-RE discs. Plaintiff sought the following relief: a judgment that one or more of Defendants had infringed on one or more claims of the patent; a judgment that Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages and costs incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendants’ infringing activities; a judgment that Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff a reasonable, on-going, post judgment royalty because of Defendants’ infringing activities; that Defendants’ infringements be found to be willful from the time that Defendants became aware of the infringing nature of their respective products and services, so as to aware treble damages for the period of such willful infringement; and any other relief that the court found proper.

On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff dismissed claims against Defendant Moser Baer Technologies, Inc. On September 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added the following Defendants: Panasonic Corp.; Panasonic Corp. of North America; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Additionally, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants products infringed on one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,011,757 (“the ‘757 patent”), entitled “Optical Recording Media Having Increased Erasability,” and U.S. Patent No. 5,335,219 (“the ‘219 patent), entitled “Homogenous Composition of Microcrystalline Semiconductor Material, Semiconductor Devices and Directly Overwritable Memory Elements Fabricated Therefrom and Arrays Fabricated from the Memory Elements.”

Between May 14, 2012 and June 15, 2012, the court granted individual Stipulations of Dismissal with Prejudice between Plaintiff and all remaining Defendants.