M4siz Limited v. Walmart Inc.

On February 18, 2022, M4siz Limited (“Plaintiff” or “M4siz”), represented by Kyril V. Talanov of Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing PC and William P. Ramey, III of Ramey & Schwaller LLP, filed an intellectual lawsuit against Walmart Inc (“Walmart” or “Defendant”), seeking damages along with pre- and post-judgment interest for the Defendant’s 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 U.S. Patent No. 6,526,402 (“the ‘402 patent” or “Patent-in-suit”) owned by the Plaintiff.

In their complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant has, under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), directly infringed, 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 AccusedProducts.”

The Plaintiffs further alleged that, “Defendant also indirectly infringed the ‘402 patent by actively inducing the direct infringement by third parties under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has actively aided, abetted and induced others to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘402patent (such as its customers in this District and throughout the United States). Defendant has contributorily infringed because it supplied 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. Defendant contributed to its customers’ infringement because Defendant supplied the technology that allowed its customers to infringe the patent.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendant provided information and technical support to its customers, including product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations, and website materials encouraging its customers to purchase and instructing them to use Defendant’s Accused Products (which are acts of direct infringement of the ‘402 patent).”

The only claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff is for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,526,402 (“the ‘402 patent” or “Patent-in-suit”) owned by the Plaintiff.

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for a judgment that Defendant has directly infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the patent-in-suit and award damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, including past damages based on, inter alia, any necessary compliance with 35 U.S.C. §287 and award supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement along with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys fees or any other such relief that the Court deems appropriate.

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.