Optical Licensing LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

On August 31, 2021, Optical Licensing LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Optical”), represented by Howard L. Wernow of Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. (hereinafter “Home Depot” or “Defendant”), seeking permanent injunctive relief and damages, along with prejudgement and post-judgement reliefs for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent owned by the Plaintiff. The 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 the United States Patent No. 6,791,898 (“the ‘898 Patent” or the “Patent-in-Suit”) owned by them.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendant is now, and has been directly infringing at least Claim 7, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘898 Patent” and “Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the ‘898 Patent at least as of the service of the present Complaint.”

Further the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant has directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and continues to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘898 Patent by selling and/or using, at least through internal testing or otherwise, the Accused Product without authority in the United States, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the ‘898 Patent, Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendant has induced others to infringe the ‘898 Patent by encouraging infringement through their use of the Accused Product, knowing that the acts of Defendant induced constituted patent infringement, and its encouraging acts actually resulted in direct patent infringement either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.”

The only claim of relief laid down by the Plaintiff is for the alleged infringement of the ‘898 Patent and profiting from the illegal and unauthorised use of the Patent. 

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for declaratory relief and permanent injunctive relief along with an accounting of all infringing sales and damages including, but not limited to, those sales and damages not presented at trial; an award of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for the Defendants’ past infringement and any continuing or future infringement up until the date that Defendants is/are finally and permanently enjoined from further infringement, including compensatory damages; and an assessment of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs against Defendants, together with an award of such interest and costs, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §284 along with enhanced damages together with costs of litigation. 

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.