Articles Posted in Patent Litigation

Los Angeles, CA – A patent infringement lawsuit was filed by patent attorneys on behalf of Roland, a Japanese corporation, at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, accusing Wirges Percussion of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,121,538 (“the ‘538 patent”). The ‘538 patent, entitled “Electronic Percussion Instrumental System and Percussion Detecting Apparatus Therein,” was issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on September 19, 2000. The complaint accuses Wirges of making and selling custom electronic drums that infringe on one or more claims of the ‘538 patent.

The ‘538 patent generally relates to a drum having a net-like surface, which allows better elasticity and percussion. It also allows for better detection of percussion as electrical signals and generates musical tone based on the detected electrical signals. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s “infringing activities has caused and will cause Roland irreparable harm from which it has no adequate remedy at law.” Thus, in addition to monetary damages, Roland seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions. The case is titled Roland Corporation v. Wirges Percussion Systems, LLC, CV 08-04785 GAF (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Los Angeles, CA – Corporacion’s patent attorneys filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Central District of California (Los Angeles Division), accusing Charming Shoppes and Lane Bryant of patent infringement. U.S. Patent No. 6,543,062 entitled “Pants Garment with Body Profile Enhancement Features” was duly issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on April 8, 2003. After the ‘062 patent’s issuance, it was assigned to plaintiff Corporacion.

The ‘062 patent covers a pants garment with elastic components built therein to allow for an improved anatomical fit: “the pants garment is provided with a unique cut and assembly that lifts and accentuates the wearer’s buttocks. In another preferred aspect of the invention, the pants garment additionally reduces the wearer’s stomach.” Defendants sell jeans and pants under the “Secret Slimmer” trademark, which are accused of infringing the ‘062 patent: “[t]he Secret Slimmer products are not staple articles of commerce, and Defendants know or should know that these products have no substantial non-infringing uses. Defendants engage in these acts despite their actual notice and knowledge of the ‘062 patent.” In addition to monetary damages, which Plaintiff asks the Court to treble based on the alleged intentional infringement by Defendants, the Plaintiff also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions. The case is titled Corporacion 1466, C.A. v. Charming Shoppes, Inc. et al., CV 08-04693 MMM (Central District of California 2008).

UPDATE 11/20/2008: The Court dismissed the patent infringement case with prejudice because the parties settled. Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Los Angeles, CA – Patent attorneys for Patent Category Corporation (“PCC”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, accusing Easton Sports of infringing three PCC utility patents. PCC is the assignee of the inventions covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,357,510, entitled “Collapsible Support Frames,” U.S. Patent No. 6,604,537, entitled “Collapsible Structures,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,758,003, entitled “Collapsible Structures Supported On A Pole.” The patents generally relate to flexible structures that are foldable and comprise support nets, which, in one preferred embodiment, may be used in practicing sports.

The complaint alleges that Easton Sport’s five foot pop-up multi net (pictured herein) and seven foot catch net infringe on the patents-at-issue. “PCC has been damaged by Easton’s infringement of each of the patents-in-suit in an amount to be determined at trial. Furthermore, by these acts, Easton has irreparably injured PCC and such injury will continue unless Easton is enjoined by this Court.” The case is titled Patent Category Corporation v. Easton Sports, Inc., CV 08-04617 DDP (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Los Angeles, CA – A patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Xyratex’s patent attorneys at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, accusing Teradyne of infringing on its disk drive patent. Xyratex is the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,826,046, entitled “Disk Drive Unit.” The patent relates to asynchronous disk drive testing field, where by controlling the temperature of each disk drive in a testing apparatus that houses multiple disk drives enables each disk drive to be tested independently.

The complaint alleges that Teradyne has subsequently designed, manufactured, and offered for sale asynchronous disk drive test equipment that controls the temperature of individual disk drives in a testing apparatus that houses multiple disk drives. Xyratex states that it has not been able to study Defendant’s product and compare it to the ‘046 patent, in order to comply with it pre-suit investigation, because the Defendant’s product and/or specifications are not publicly available. Representatives of both parties allegedly met and Xyratex asked the defendant to provide an analysis and explanation of why Teradyne’s product does not infringe the ‘046 patent. Teradyne has allegedly refused to provide such explanation, resulting in the filing of the instant lawsuit. In addition to monetary damages, Xyratex also seeks both preliminary and permanent injunctions against further alleged infringement. The case is titled Xyratex Technology, Inc. v. Teradyne, Inc., CV 08-04545 SJO (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Santa Ana, CA – A patent infringement lawsuit was filed by patent attorneys for Gem Certification & Assurance Lab (“GCAL”) at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, accusing GemEx of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,983,238 (“the ‘238 patent”). The ‘238 patent, entitled “Gemstone Identification Tracking and Recovery System,” was issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on November 9, 1999. The complaint alleges that GemEx uses a system for tracking gemstones that infringes one or more claims of the ‘238 patent.

The ‘238 patent generally relates to a central computer database that stores relevant information about a purchased gemstone, including the purchaser’s information, the quality of the gemstone – especially diamonds, and a unique identification number laser etched into the stone that can be used to identify a stolen or lost gemstone to aid with the recovery of the same. The database can then be accessed by third parties, such as the police or jewelry dealers, to determine if a particular diamond or gemstone has been reported as lost or stolen. The case is titled Gem Certification & Assurance Lab, Inc. v. GemEx Systems, Inc., SACV 08-700 JVS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

Read a jewelry patent lawyer‘s more detailed article on how to protect jewelry through both design patents and utility patents and infringement lawsuits to enforce them.

Santa Ana, CA – Patent attorneys for Allstar Tire & Wheel commenced patent infringement litigation at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana Division) to protect a wheel design patent from copying. U.S. Patent No. D503,369, titled “Decorative Vehicular Wheel Lip,” issued on March 29, 2005 to an individual inventor, Joey K. Kato. The ‘369 Patent was assigned to Allstar Tire & Wheel, including the right to sue for infringement.

Allstar sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant Wheel Pros in mid-2007; however, the complaint alleges that Wheel Pros has not responded and has not ceased the sale of infringing products. In fact, Allstar alleges that Wheel Pros has continued to add new models of wheels that infringe the ‘369 Patent. As a result, the complaint claims that Wheel Pros’ alleged infringement is willful and intentional and requests enhanced damages. The case is titled Allstar Tire & Wheel, Inc. v. Wheel Pros, Inc., SACV08-00563 AHS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

In a jewelry patent infringement lawsuit pending at the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, after oral arguments by each party’s patent attorneys at the Markman hearing, the Court issued its claim construction ruling interpreting the disputed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,928,734 (“the ‘734 patent”), 6,990,736 (“the ‘736 patent”), 7,032,314 (“the ‘314 patent”) and 7,076,972 (“the ‘972 patent”). The patents cover jewelry rings made of tungsten carbide and a method for making such jewelry rings. The ‘736, ‘314, and ‘972 patents are continuations-in-part of unasserted U.S. Patent No. 6,062,045, titled “Wear Resistance Jewelry.”

The Court set forth the legal standard for claim construction as a question of law to be decided by the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The patentee’s use of a claim term in the specification is highly relevant to understanding the proper context in which the term is used. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The specification is the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id., citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Following these controlling cases in the patent claim construction arena cited above, the Court adopted some of each party’s proposed claim interpretations and, in one instance, the Court adopted a modified combination of each party’s proposed claim construction. The Court’s ruling is available here. The case is titled Trent West v. Jewelry Innovations, Inc., CV07-1812 JF (N.D. Cal. 2007).

Costa Mesa, CA – Broadcom’s patent attorneys filed a patent infringement complaint at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, accusing SiRF Technology of infringing four of Broadcom’s patents. Icon states that it is “an award-winning innovator in the field of exercise equipment and provides a variety of consumer products.” Icon is the assignee of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,104,120, titled “Exercise Machine Control System.” Icon is also the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,019,710, titled “Exercising Device With Elliptical Movement.” The first, U.S. Patent No. 7,310,104, is entitled “Graphics Display System with Anti-Flutter Filtering and Vertical Scaling Feature.” The next, U.S. Patent No. 6,501,480, is entitled “Graphics Accelerator.” The third, U.S. Patent No. 6,747,497, is entitled “High-Speed, Wide Bandwidth Phase Locked Loop.” And finally, U.S. Patent No. 5,525,127, is entitled “Unique Word Detector and Method for Detecting a Unique Word Within One of Several Windows Offset in Time.” The complaint alleges that SiRF sells chips which provide GPS functionality for devices and enables GPS devices to support graphics and video processing. The case is titled Broadcom Corporation v. SiRF Technology, Inc., SACV08-546 AG (C.D. 2008).