On September 13, 2012, Allvoi hit Swift N Simple (“Swift”) with a trademark infringement lawsuit (complaint available here). Allvoi claims that Swift operates the website allvoi.net, which offers discount calls to India, whereas Allvoi operates the website allvoi.com and offers unlimited national and worldwide discounted long distance services. Swift, according to Allvoi, infringes Allvoi’s registered service mark ALLVOI.
Allvoi is represented by Brett Myers, of David, Goodman & Madole, P.C.
On September 12, 2012, OnAsset Intelligence hit 7PSolutions with a patent infringement lawsuit (available here) in the Northern District of Texas. OnAsset claims 7PSolutions infringes U.S. Patent No. Patent No. 7,791,455, titled “Method and Apparatus for Autonomous Detection of a Given Location or Situation,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,652,576, titled “Method and Apparatus for Locating And/Or Otherwise Monitoring an ID Tagged Asset’s Condition,” through the sale of air cargo tracking systems and devices.
OnAsset is represented by Christopher Joe and Monica Tavakoli, both of Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC.
On September 11, 2012, American Board of School Neuropsychology, Inc. (“ABSNP”) sued Kindergarten Diagnostic Intervention Services, Inc., American Board of School Neuropsychology, LLC and Daniel C. Miller, Ph.D for trademark infringement (complaint available here). ABSNP claims that defendants infringe its common law trademark “American Board of School Neuropsychology” for use with its business of training and certifying diplomates in the discipline of school neuropsychology by, among other things, “impersonating ABSNP wholesale.”
ABSNP is represented by Joseph Coniglio and Anthony Matheny, both of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
We previously discussed Judge Godbey’s $10,000 sanctions order against Mick Haig’s attorney for violating Judge Godbey’s order precluding the service of subpoenas on ISPs designed to obtain the identities of alleged copyright infringers (of copyrighted porn). Mick Haig’s attorney subsequently appealed Judge Godbey’s order to the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit recently issued its decision (available here), upholding Judge Godbey’s sanctions order. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit held that Mick Haig’s attorney had “waived all arguments” he attempted to raise on appeal, given that he raised his arguments for the first time on appeal or for the first time in an untimely motion filed in the district court to stay the sanctions order pending appeal.
Mick Haig’s attorney argued that he was still entitled to make his arguments, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed:
Nonetheless, [Mick Haig’s attorney] asserted, at oral argument and for the first time, that this court can consider his arguments because his appeal is one of “extraordinary circumstances,” involving only “pure question[s] of law [in which] a miscarriage of justice would result from our failure to consider [them].” AG Acceptance Corp. v. Veigel, 564 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 2009). We conclude, however, that no miscarriage of justice will result from the sanctions imposed as a result of [the attorney’s] flagrant violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the district court’s orders. [He] committed those violations as an attempt to repeat his strategy of suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally, using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars—a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country.
As we previously noted, the Northern District of Texas is participating in a patent pilot program, whereby three judges in the Northern District of Texas (Judges Lynn, Godbey and Kinkeade) are hearing all patent cases filed in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
Judge Means (of the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division) recently issued an order (available here) in the Williams-Pyro v. Warren Watts case, notifying the parties that “that the Northern District of Texas has formed a patent panel of judges (Judges Kinkeade, Godbey, and Lynn) sitting in the Dallas division who are acquiring expertise in patent law and litigation.” Judge Means further stated that, “[t]his case will be transferred to a randomly selected judge of that panel if the parties jointly so request in a motion filed no later than September 21, 2012. If no such request is filed by that date, the case will remain on the “Y” docket in the Fort Worth division.” So, the bottom line is that, if you want Judge Lynn, Kinkeade or Godbey hearing your patent infringement case, and you’re not sure if your defendant agrees with you, it’s best to file the case in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, rather than the Fort Worth Division, because it seems, at least in Judge Means’ court, that any party has the ability to prevent the patent case from being assigned to one of the patent pilot program judges.
We came across a recent Locke Lorde article (available here) that discusses Judge Godbey’s views on holding a Markman hearing. In short, according to a roundtable discussion that Judge Godbey participated in, he’d “rather study the briefing than listen to patent litigators ‘stand up on your feet and perform’ in his courtroom[.]” The Locke Lorde piece is an interesting read, as it gives good insight into practicing before Judge Godbey and since it notes that patent filings in the Northern District of Texas are up significantly since October 2011.
On September 7, 2012, Mi Cocina filed its lawsuit (available here) against Martin Solis-Martinez, in the Northern District of Texas. Mi Cocina claims that the defendant is using the mark MI COCINA HONDURENA for restaurant services, which is confusing similar to Mi Cocina’s MI COCINA marks. Mi Cocina asserts causes of action for federal trademark infringement and Texas common law unfair competition and dilution.
Mi Cocina is represented by Thomas McElyea, of the Benenati Law Firm, P.C.
On September 7, 2012, Long Range Systems hit HME Wireless with a patent infringement complaint (available here). Long Range claims that HME “has engaged in what amounts to wholesale theft of Long Range’s intellectual property by infringing, contributorily infringing, or inducing others to infringe Long Range’s valid U.S. Patent No. 6,712,278 entitled ‘On-Premises Restaurant Communication System and Method’” through the sale of its TrackSmart table location system.
Long Range Systems is represented by J. David Cabello and Russell Wong, both of Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri, L.L.P.
It’s being reported (see here for example) that the Federal Judiciary will close six courthouses in the South, including the Amarillo Bankruptcy court in the Northern District of Texas.
On September 9, 2012, Reaux Medical Industries filed a patent infringement lawsuit (available here) against Stryker Corp. and others in the Northern District of Texas. Reaux Medical claims that defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,261,375, which claims a method of forming a sterile hood. Reaux Medical claims that Stryker manufactures togas and hood products with peel-away eye shield options that are made using the claimed steps of the patent-in-suit.
Reaux Medical is represented by D. Scott Hemingway and Eugenia Hansen, both of Hemingway & Hansen, LLP.
