Cinsay Sues Joyus and Brightcove for Patent Infringement In Northern District of Texas

Posted on September 19, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On September 10, 2013, Cinsay hit Joyus with a complaint (available here) for patent infringement. Cinsay claims that defendants have infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,312,486, entitled “Interactive Product Placement System and Method Therefor” through the defendants’ videos with product placement.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Cinsay Sues Joyus and Brightcove for Patent Infringement In Northern District of Texas

Micrografx Files Suit Against Google And Samsung In Northern District of Texas

Posted on September 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On September 9, 2013, Micrografx filed patent infringement lawsuits against Google and Samsung (complaints available here and here). Micrografx asserts that defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,959,633; 6,057,854; and 6,552,732 through the sale of their phones and tablets, among other products. 

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Micrografx Files Suit Against Google And Samsung In Northern District of Texas

Employment Law Compliance Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Compli

Posted on September 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On September 6, 2013, Employment Law Compliance filed a patent infringement lawsuit (complaint available here) against Compli in the Northern District of Texas. ELC claims that Compli infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,330,817, which claims systems and methods relating to employment law compliance, establishment, evaluation and review.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Employment Law Compliance Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Compli

IVFMD Florida, Inc. sues IVFMD, P.A. For Trademark Infringement In Northern District of Texas

Posted on September 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On September 3, 2013, IVFMD Florida, Inc. filed a trademark infringement lawsuit (complaint available here) against IVFMD, P.A. IVFMD claims that it has “used its IVFMD marks for over fifteen years and has established extensive use of and fame in the marks in Florida, across the United States, and internationally” and that Defendant is “infringing IVFMD mark[s] in various contexts in connection with its medical and health services which are identical to certain of Plaintiff’s medical and health goods and services.”

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on IVFMD Florida, Inc. sues IVFMD, P.A. For Trademark Infringement In Northern District of Texas

Spherix Files Two Patent Infringement Lawsuits in Northern District of Texas

Posted on September 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On August 30, 2013, Spherix filed a lawsuit against Uniden (complaint available here) and another lawsuit against VTech (complaint available here). Spherix claims that the defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,599; 5,752,195; 5,892,814; 6,614,899; and 6,965,614, through the sale of certain telephones.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Spherix Files Two Patent Infringement Lawsuits in Northern District of Texas

Magistrate Judge Ramirez Recommends that Summary Judgment of Invalidity Should be Rendered For Indefiniteness in H-W Technology Case

Posted on September 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On August 30, 2013, Magistrate Judge Ramirez issued an opinion (available here) in H-W Technology v. Overstock.com.  Overstock had moved for summary judgment, claiming that two claims of the patent-in-suit were allegedly invalid for indefiniteness. Judge Ramirez agreed.

First, Judge Ramirez held that one of the asserted claims was invalid because it issued without language approved of by the PTO. “Here, the error is a material limitation of the patent claim that Plaintiff has failed to correct. . . . The prosecution history discloses that the missing language was required, but it is impossible to tell what language is missing simply by reading the patent.” Judge Ramirez held that the Court lacked authority to correct the claim under these circumstances. Hence, the claim was invalid.

Second, Judge Ramirez held that the second asserted claim was invalid because it combined two statutory classes of invention (i.e., apparatus and method claims) in a single claim.

Posted in Magistrate Judge Ramirez | Comments Off on Magistrate Judge Ramirez Recommends that Summary Judgment of Invalidity Should be Rendered For Indefiniteness in H-W Technology Case

VPI Holding Sues Key to Success Magazine For Trademark Infringement

Posted on September 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On August 27, 2013, VPI Holding hit Key to Success Magazine with a trademark infringement lawsuit (complaint available here). VPI claims that it is the owner of, among other things, “Federal Trademark Registration No. 3,472,209 on the Principal Register for the trademark ‘SUCCESS®’ for among other things ‘magazines pertaining to the fields of professional, personal and financial achievement, and entrepreneurial management’ in Class 16” and “Federal Trademark Registration No. 1,334,275 on the Principal Register for the trademark ‘SUCCESS!®’ for ‘general interest magazines’ in Class 16.” VPI asserts that Key to Success Magazine is its direct competitor, and has adopted the mark “KEY TO SUCCESS” in connection with the sale of its magazines and publications, thereby committing trademark infringement.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on VPI Holding Sues Key to Success Magazine For Trademark Infringement

Chief Judge Fitzwater Grants Partial Summary Judgment In Hoffman v. L&M Arts Case

Posted on September 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On August 26, 2013, Chief Judge Fitzwater issued an opinion (available here) in Hoffman v. L&M Arts. The case involves Hoffman’s (a noted Dallas philanthropist’s) sale of a Rothko painting for $17.6 million. (For more details, see Hoffman’s complaint, which is available here). Of note, Chief Judge Fitzwater ruled that unpleaded claims are insufficient to avoid summary judgment. He also dismissed Hoffman’s fraudulent inducement claim, but allowed Hoffman’s breach of contract damages theory to remain in the case, finding it legally viable.

Posted in Judge Fitzwater | Comments Off on Chief Judge Fitzwater Grants Partial Summary Judgment In Hoffman v. L&M Arts Case

Judge Godbey Issues Order On Motions to Dismiss and Transfer Venue In OnAsset Patent Infringement Case

Posted on September 3, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On August 21, 2013, Judge Godbey issued an Order (available here) resolving several motions filed in the OnAsset v. 7PSolutions case. Judge Godbey held that the Court had personal jurisdiction over 7PSolutions, and venue was proper in the Northern District of Texas. Judge Godbey also held that the case should not be transferred to Indiana because 7PSolutions had not carried its transfer burden under In re Volkswagen.

Finally, Judge Godbey granted 7PSolutions’ motion to dismiss OnAsset’s claims for indirect and willful infringement:

The Court finds that the complaint does not sufficiently state the contested claims. First, as to indirect infringement, the complaint asserts that 7PSolutions “has induced and induces its customers and end users to infringe” the two patents at issue. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 15. OnAsset has pled no facts to support these conclusions. The Court concludes, therefore, that OnAsset has not stated a plausible claim of indirect infringement. Second, OnAsset’s assertions of willful infringement are limited to conclusory statements that, on information and belief, 7PSolutions was aware of the patents in question. OnAsset has provided no further facts in support of its claim. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it has not stated a plausible claim for willful infringement.

OnAsset was given an opportunity to amend its complaint.

Posted in Judge Godbey (Chief Judge) | Comments Off on Judge Godbey Issues Order On Motions to Dismiss and Transfer Venue In OnAsset Patent Infringement Case

Federal Circuit Holds That Companies May Keep Confidential Information Sealed In Pre-Trial And Post-Trial Motions

Posted on September 3, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On August 23, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Apple v. Samsung (available here). Apple had sought to seal the following categories of information: (1) confidential financial information; (2) confidential source code and schematics; (3) proprietary market research reports; and (4) confidential licensing information.

Samsung sought to seal information falling within the categories of: (1) confidential financial information; (2) confidential source code; (3) future business plans; and (4) information disclosing its tax accounting procedures.

The district court denied the parties’ request to seal “documents disclosing the parties’ product specific profits, profit margins, unit sales, revenues, and costs, as well as Apple’s own proprietary market research reports and customer surveys and the non-price terms of licensing agreements.”

The Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the parties’ requests to seal these documents. The Federal Circuit concluded that “Apple and Samsung have a significant interest in preventing the release of their detailed financial information” and noted that “the financial information at issue was not considered by the jury and is not essential to the public’s understanding of the jury’s damages award.”

Posted in Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Practice Tips | Comments Off on Federal Circuit Holds That Companies May Keep Confidential Information Sealed In Pre-Trial And Post-Trial Motions