Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Precite, Inc. v. American Laser Enterprises, LLC

Case Name: Precite, Inc. v. American Laser Enterprises, LLC
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-11260-AC-LJM
Date Filed: 3/21/2012
Judge: Hon. Avern C. Cohn
Status: Closed

            Precite, Inc. filed for suit against American Laser Enterprises, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,489,888 (“the ‘888 patent”) entitled “For capacitive distance measurement.” The ‘888 patent generally relates to a sensor system for contactless measuring of the distance between a sensor body and an object. On July 10, 2012, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its case against Defendant without prejudice. 

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Roll-Rite, LLC v. Shur-Co, LLC

Case Name: Roll-Rite, LLC v. Shur-Co, LLC
Docket Number: 1:2012-cv-11150-TLL-CEB
Date Filed: 3/14/2012
Judge: Hon. Thomas L. Ludington
Status: Pending

Roll-Rite, LLC filed suit against Shur-Co, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,829,819 (“the ‘819 patent”) entitled “Electric Tarp System for Truck Bed.” The ‘819 patent generally relates to a direct-drive actuator assembly for actuating a tarp spool. Specifically, Roll-Rite alleged that Shur-Co sold products covered by the patent without its permission. Shur-Co denied such allegations and counterclaim stating that Roll-Rite failed to comply with one or more conditions for patentability and for false patent marking. 

On January 13, 2014, Shur-Co filed a motion for summary judgment on non-infringement of the ‘819 patent and no damages based on Roll-Rite’s alleged lost sales of unpatented gear motors. The court denied Shur-Co’s motion. Currently, the case is still pending.

On January 13, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.  However, on May 29, 2014, the Honorable Thomas L. Ludington denied the motion for summary judgment.  Defendant alleged two grounds for summary judgment: first Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim of infringement because the defendant’s product does not meet all the requirements of the claim construction, and second, that Roll-Rite is not entitled to lost profits.  The Judge determined that Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on these claims. The court found that there exists a more than reasonable method of lost product calculations and that there exists a reasonable question of fact in regards to whether the 4500 Series has a brake, per the claim construction and facts of the case. On September 16, 2014, the case was dismissed with prejudice as the parties had entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Proprietary Wellness, LLC v. Primordial Performance, LLC et al

Case Name: Proprietary Wellness, LLC v. Primordial Performance, LLC et al
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-11072-DML-PJK
Date Filed: 3/9/2012
Judge: Hon. David M. Lawson
Status: Closed

            Proprietary Wellness filed suit against Primordial Performance, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,084,446 (“the ‘446 patent”) entitled “Use of DHEA Derivatives for Enhancing Physical Performance.” The ‘446 patent generally relates to the use of DHEA derivatives for anti-aging benefits, decreasing body weight, reducing adipose tissue, and increasing endurance. Specifically, Proprietary Wellness alleged that Primordial Performance continued to distribute and sell its product without its authorization and failed to make royalty payments per an earlier agreement. However, on May 5th, 2012, the parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the case as the parties had entered into a settlement agreement on April 30, 2012. In the settlement agreement, Primordial Performance admitted to infringement and agreed to pay $40,000.00 to satisfy outstanding royalties on the 2008 and 2010 licensing agreements.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Innovative Global Systems LLC v. OnStar, LLC

Case Name: Innovative Global Systems LLC v. OnStar, LLC
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-11024-PJD-RSW
Date Filed: 3/7/2012
Judge: Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
Status: Closed

Innovative Global Systems, LLC (the “Plaintiff”) filed suit against OnStar, LLC., ATX Group, Inc., Xirgo Technologies, LLC., Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, and Power Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for patent infringement of the following five patents (collectively the “patents-in-suit”): 1) U.S. Patent No. 6,608,554 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Data Communication between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal” 2) U.S. Patent No. 6,411,203 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Data Communication Between Heavy Duty Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal,” 3) U.S. Patent No. 6,744,352 entitled “System, Apparatus and Methods for Data Communication between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal, between Portions of Vehicle and other Portions of Vehicle, between Two or More Vehicles, and Between Vehicle and Communications Network”, 4) U.S. Patent No. 7,015,800 entitled “System, Apparatus and Methods for Data Communication Between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal, Between Portions of Vehicle and Other Portions of Vehicle, Between Two or More Vehicles, and Between Vehicle and Communications Network”, 5) U.S. Patent No. 7,449,993 entitled “System, Apparatus and Methods for Data Communication Between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal, Between Portions of Vehicle and Other Portions of Vehicle, Between Two or More Vehicles, and Between Vehicle and Communications Network” The patents-in-suit generally relate to apparatuses and method for providing data communication associated with vehicles. On October 29, 2012 Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit with prejudice against Defendants.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

RSR Sales, Incorpoated v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. et al

Case Name: RSR Sales, Incorporated v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al
Docket Number: 4:12-cv-10719-GAD-MKM
Date Filed: 2/16/2012
Judge: Hon. Gershwin Drain
Status: Closed

            RSR Sales filed suit against Lowe’s for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,252,889 (“the ‘889 patent”), entitled “Glow-in-the-Dark Glazing Globes and Other Ornaments Particularly for Gardens”, for copyright infringement of U.S. Copyright Reg. Nos. TXul-252-249 and VA1-656-194, and for a violation of the Lanham act. The ‘889 patent generally relates to a method of fabricating glow-in-the-dark glazing globes or other objects. Lowe’s filed numerous motions attempting to dismiss the case due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and tried to remove the state law claims from suit, which were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the case on November 19, 2013.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Tribe7 Lacrosse, LLC

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Tribe7 Lacrosse, LLC
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-10704-AJT-MJH
Date Filed: 2/16/2012
Judge: Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow
Status: Closed

Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit against Tribe7 Lacrosse for patent infringement of six of the following Warrior Sports’ patents: U.S. Patent 7,900,275 (“the ‘275 patent”) entitled “Protective Sports Glove With Floating Cuff Portion;” U.S. Patent 7,636,951 (“the ’951 patent”), entitled “Protective Sports Glove With Floating Cuff Portion;” U.S. Patent 7,318,241 (“the ’241 patent”), entitled “Padded Sports Glove having Improved Flexibility and Breathability;” U.S. Patent 7,117,540 (“the ‘540 patent”), entitled “Padded Sports Glove having Improved Flexibility and Breathability;” U.S. Patent 6,813,780 (“the ‘780 patent”), entitled “Padded Sports Glove having Improved Flexibility and Breathability;” and US Patent 6,550,069 (“the ‘690 patent”), entitled “Padded Sports Glove Having Improved Flexibility and Breathability” (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit generally relate to protective sports gloves which provide increased flexibility and protection for a wearer’s hand, wrist, and forearm. Specifically, Warrior Sports alleged that Tribe7 Lacrosse had willfully sold products covered by the patents-in-suit in its stores without Warrior’s consent. On April 16, 2013, the Warrior Sports voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Crorey Creations, Inc. v. Target Corporation

Case Name: Crorey Creations, Inc. v. Target Corporation
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-10712-DML-MJH
Date Filed: 2/16/2012
Judge: Hon. David M. Lawson
Status: Closed

Crorey Creations filed suit against Target Corporation for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,946,631 (“the ‘631 patent”) entitled “Friendship Bracelet Maker.” The ‘631 patent generally relates to a device and kit for making knotted string accessories. The case was eventually voluntarily dismissed by both parties with prejudice.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Schrader-Bridgeport International Inc. et al v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.

Case Name: Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. et al v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-10715-SJM-MJH
Date Filed: 2/16/2012
Judge: Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III
Status: Pending

Schrader-Bridgeport and Schrader Electronics (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), filed suit against Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. (“Defendant”) asserting that the Defendant had violated U.S. Patent No. 7,518,495 (“the ‘495 patent”) entitled “Universal Tire Pressure Monitor”. The ‘495 patent generally describes a monitor for use in a remote tire pressure monitoring system for the vehicle. Continental proceeded to file a counterclaim alleging infringement of four of Continental’s patents. Separate Markman hearings were held for the original complaint and counterclaim. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment of “no validity” of the ‘495 patent and a motion for partial summary judgment of literal infringement regarding the ‘495 patent. While the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment for invalidity of the ‘495 patent and a motion for partial summary judgment related to literal infringement. A hearing was held on April 28, 2014 for all motions relating to summary judgment.

The orders related to such motions are under seal, however, according to court records, the court granted the sealed motion for summary judgment of invalidity in part for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, denied the motion for partial summary judgment of “no invalidity,” and denied the motion for partial summary judgment of literal infringement as moot based on the erroneous Lack of Enablement judgment. On June 17, 2014, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. An appeal was filed on July 7, 2014 by Plaintiffs appealing rulings on the summary judgment motions. As of July 8, 2014, a motion to extend time to file motions for attorney fees by the Defendant state that the Plaintiff and Defendant were in settlement discussions. On March 18, 2015, Plaintiffs with the consent of Defendant filed a motion for vacatur and dismissal of all claims with prejudice and closure of the action subject to the terms of a settlement agreement. On March 31, 2015, Plaintiffs’ motion was granted and an order was issued by the Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III dismissing the claims with prejudice.