M4siz Limited v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

On July 26, 2021, M4siz Limited (“M4siz” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Erick S. Robinson of Porter Hedges LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco” or “Defendant”), seeking permanent injunctive reliefs and damages along with prejudgement and post-judgement interests among other reliefs for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas with Judge Alan D. Albright presiding.

The Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 6,526,402 (“the ‘402 patent”), entitled “Searching procedures” (“Patent-in-suit”) owned by the Plaintiff.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant has, under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including without limitation at least claim 1 of the ‘402 patent, by making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing into the United States Defendant’s Accused Products.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendant also indirectly infringes the ‘402 patent by actively inducing the direct infringement by third parties under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has knowingly and intentionally actively aided, abetted and induced others to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘402 patent (such as its customers in this District and throughout the United States).” The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendant has contributorily infringed and is a contributory infringer because, with knowledge of the ‘402 patent, it supplies a material part of an infringing method and/or system, where the material part is not a staple article of commerce, and is incapable of substantial noninfringing use.”

Further, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant has knowledge that its activities concerning the Accused Products infringe one or more claims of the ‘402 patent. On information and belief, Defendant will continue to encourage, aid, or otherwise cause third parties to import, sell, offer for sale, and use the Accused Products (which are acts of direct infringement of the ‘402 patent) and Defendant has and will continue to encourage those acts with the specific intent to infringe one or more claims of the ‘402 patent.”

There is one claim of relief laid down by the Plaintiff for the alleged infringement of the Patent-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory reliefs along with an award for damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 including past damages based on, inter alia, any necessary compliance with 35 U.S.C. §287, treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284, and supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement along with prejudgment and post judgment interests. Further, the Plaintiff requested the Court for an award of a compulsory ongoing royalty and costs for bringing this action along with reasonable attorneys’ fees and any other relief the court deems just and equitable.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.