Tag Archives: Patent Litigation

Patent Infringement Suit in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Ames True Temper, Inc. filed suit in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Southern Sales & Marketing Group, Inc. claiming patent infringement. Ames’ principal place of business is located in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that Southern Sales is infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,360,484, entitled “Planter and method of manufacturing same”. The abstract for the invention reads as follows:

A decorative planter includes a base having upper and lower portions and a flange disposed about the outer periphery of the upper portion. The planter also includes a collar dimensioned to encompass the upper portion of the base. The collar has a mechanical interface which engages the flange such that the collar and the flange form a decorative rim about the upper portion of the planter. The present disclosure also relates to a method of forming a decorative planter which includes the steps of: a) forming a base having upper and lower portions and a flange disposed about the outer periphery of the upper portion; b) forming a collar dimensioned to encompass the upper portion of the base, the collar having a mechanical interface dimensioned to mechanically engage the flange; and c) engaging the collar and the flange to form a decorative rim about the upper portion of the base.

An answer has not yet been filed.

Patent Infringement Case in Pittsburgh

Best Medical International Inc., a Virginia corporation, filed suit for patent infringement in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Accuray Inc. and several defendants as individuals on August 6, 2010. The patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,596,619 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Conformal Radiation Therapy” is related to a method and apparatus for conformal radiation therapy with a specialized radiation beam.

The complaint alleges that Accuray has manufactured and sold a product that infringes the ‘619 patent. The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants have aided and abetted Accuray’s infringement of plaintiff’s patent and have divulged plaintiff’s trade secrets and intellectual property to defendant Accuray.

An answer has not yet been filed.

Pennsylvania Company Files Suit for Patent Infringement

On June 24, 2010 Jones Performance Products, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Bad Ass Custom Truck Parts Inc., a Kentucky corporation, asserting patent infringement.

U.S. Patent No. D549,624 was issued to Jones Performance for a “Truck Fender.” The ‘624 Patent discloses and claims an ornamental design for a truck fender.

The Complaint alleges that Bad Ass Custom Truck Parts has been making, offering for sale, selling, making use of, and applying the design shown in the ‘624 Patent to its own custom truck fenders. Jones Performance Products also allege that Bad Ass Custom Truck Parts created at least one mold for the creation of the infringing product.

An Answer has not yet been filed.

Procter & Gamble Sued for False Patent Marking

Alchemy Asset Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, filed a false patent marking suit against Procter & Gamble in the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 12, 2010. The complaint alleges that Procter & Gamble marked, advertised, and marketed various products with expired patent numbers and/or marked, advertised, and marketed such products as patent-protected in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292 with intent to deceive the public.

Alchemy Asset Services requests damages against Procter & Gamble equal to a fine in the amount of $500 for each instance of false marking. One-half of the damage award would be paid to the United States and the other half would be paid to plaintiff. The specific products named in the complaint include:

1. “Ultra Downy” fabric softener;
2. “Fixodent”;
3. “Always Maxi”; and
4. “Puffs” facial tissues.

An answer has not yet been filed.

Penntech Industrial Tools, Inc. Sued for Patent Infringement

Max Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of industrial and office products, located in Japan, filed suit against Penntech Industrial Tools, Inc. in the U.S. Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 9, 2009 for patent infringement.

Max Co. designed a “battery-operated reinforcing bar tying machine designed to replace the manual process of tying rebar.” Max Co. claims that Penntech infringed Max Co.’s U.S. Design Pat. No. 527,041 titled “Wire Bobbin of the Binding Machine” and U.S. Pat. No. 6,000,443 titled “Brake Mechanism of Wire Reel for Reinforcing Bar Binding Machine.”

Penntech Industrial Tools is “a leading supplier of productive cost saving metal fabricating and metal stamping machinery, accessories and related tooling products.”

- Katie Cooper

Pittsburgh Inventor Wins Patent Infringement Case

Ren Junkins is an independent inventor from Kilbuck Township, a suburb of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He owns more than 70 patents in the window covering field.

Mr. Junkins filed suit against HT Window Fashions in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on February 27, 2007 for patent infringement based on U.S. Patent No. 7,182,120 for “Tabbed Multi-Cellular Shade Material.” The cellular shade product has pleats on the front and tabs on the back.

On November 18, 2009, a judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Junkins in the amount of $154,776 as a result of a jury verdict. The jury decided that HT Window Fashions infringed Pat. ‘120 by selling its Polaris double cell window shades.

- Katie Cooper

Google Chrome Lawsuit

An Israeli corporation filed suit against Google Inc. for patent infringement relating to Google’s new browser, Google Chrome, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 26, 2009. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,546,552, entitled “Difference Extraction Between Two Versions of Data-Tables Containing Intra-References” is owned by Red Bend Ltd. Red Bend Software is the exclusive licensee within the United States of the ‘552 Patent. (“Red Bend Ltd.” and “Red Bend Software” will be collectively referred to as “Red Bend.”)

Red Bend alleges that Google has “manufactured products and provided instructions regarding the use of those products that constitute or effect contributory and/or induced infringement of the ‘552 Patent.”

Red Bend provided two examples of Google’s alleged infringement:

1. Google’s implementation of its differential compression algorithm for making Google Chrome updates significantly smaller, used by Google and others under the direction and control of Google, infringes one or more claims of the ‘552 Patent; and

2. Google’s publication and distribution of the source code for the algorithm induces others’ infringement of one or more claims of the ‘552 Patent.

Red Bend has requested compensation including a reasonable royalty, lost profits and lost future profits, plus interest. Google has not yet filed an Answer.