Patent Armory Inc. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

On May 5, 2023, Patent Armory Inc. (“Plaintiff”) represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, filed an intellectual property rights lawsuit against LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”), seeking declaratory relief and damages for alleged infringement of the U.S. Patent. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged, “The ’413 Patent is entitled ‘Wireless communication device with integrated electromagnetic radiation sensors,’ and issued 2012-09-25. The application leading to the ’413 Patent was filed on 2011-11-22.”

Plaintiff further alleged, “The ’112 Patent is entitled ‘Mobile communication device with electromagnetic radiation sensors,’ and issued 2014-09-02. The application leading to the ’112 Patent was filed on 2014-02-26. ”

The plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’413 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’413 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the Exemplary Defendant Products and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’413 Patent.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “Direct Infringement. Defendant directly infringed one or more claims of the ’112 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the ‘Exemplary Defendant Products’) that infringed at least the exemplary claims of the ’112 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (the ‘Exemplary ’112 Patent Claims’) literally or by the doctrine of equivalents. On information and belief, numerous other devices that infringed the claims of the ’112 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its customers.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “Defendant also directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’112 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products.”

Plaintiff presented one claim for relief from alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,275,413 and 8,825,112.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested declaratory relief and an award of damages with pre- or post-judgment interest.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.