M4siz Limited v. Kohl's Corporation

On July 27, 2021, M4siz Limited (“M4siz” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Erick S. Robinson of Porter Hedges LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Kohl’s Corporation (“Kohl’s” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief, damages, and recover all past, present, and future damages 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 the complaint for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent No. 6,526,402 entitled “Searching procedures” (“the ‘402 patent”) (“patent-in-suit”) owned by 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). Defendant continues to induce infringement of the ‘402 patent.”

Further, the Plaintiff 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 non-infringing use. Defendant contributes to its customers’ infringement because, with knowledge of the ‘402 patent, Defendant supplies the technology that allows its customers to infringe the patent.”

There is only one claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff, wherein the Plaintiff has alleged the infringement of one or more claims of the Patent-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to pass an order for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief 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 with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest order. The Plaintiff also requested the Court for an award of treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement, compulsory ongoing royalty and attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs based on this being an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

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.