On April 19, 2021, Optima Direct, LLC (“Optima” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Kirk Anderson of Budo Law PC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Panasonic Corporation of North America (“Panasonic” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages with prejudgment and post-judgment interests among other reliefs, for alleged infringement of patented technology relating to chop antenna owned by Plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas with Judge Michael J. Truncale presiding.
The Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of United States Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 6,396,460 titled “Chip Antenna” (the ’460 Patent) (“Patent-in-suit”) owned by them.
The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant has infringed ’460 Patent by “(i) making, using, offering for sale and selling in the U.S. products, systems, and/or services that infringe the Patent-in-Suit, including, but not limited to, its standalone Wi-Fi modules such as PAN9420 series (the “Accused Products” or “Accused Instrumentality”), (ii) by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and devices that embody the patented inventions, including, without limitation, one or more of the patented ’460 systems and methods, and (iii) by way of inducing infringement by others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’460 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial District, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling, without license or authority, products incorporating the accused technology. End users include, for example, Defendant’s customers and other third parties interacting with the accused technology.”
Plaintiff further alleged that “Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the Patent-in-Suit as early as April 6, 2021 when it received a letter from Plaintiff notifying Defendant of Defendant’s infringement. Defendant had post-suit knowledge when this suit was filed. Despite its knowledge of the ’460 Patent, Defendant has sold the Accused Product in egregious disregard of Plaintiff’s patent rights. Defendant has acted recklessly and engaged in willful, wanton, and deliberately acts of infringement of the ’460 Patent.”
In the only claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff, Infringement of the ’460 Patent in alleged violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a) (b) (c) has been claimed, wherein it has been alleged that Nespresso has induced and continues to induce others with specific intent or willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to infringe, including customers, whose use of the Infringing Products constitutes alleged infringement of ’460 Patent.
In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to declare that the Defendant has directly infringed, contributorily infringed, and/or induced infringement of one or more claims of each of the ’460 Patent; awarding Plaintiff all damages adequate to compensate it, including all prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law; awarding treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. Plaintiff further requested the court to issue a preliminary injunction and thereafter a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant from further acts of infringement, contributory infringement, or inducement of infringement of the ’460 Patent; to pay the costs of this action, including all disbursements, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285, together with prejudgment interest.
Disclaimer: 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.
Pending - Other Pending
Michael J. Truncale
Optima Direct, LLC
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Attorney at Budo Law PC - CO
5610 Ward Rd, Suite 300
Arvada, CO 80002
Civil Cover Sheet
Docket(#4) SUMMONS Issued as to Panasonic Corporation of North America and emailed to plaintiff's counsel for service. (kcv, ) (Entered: 04/21/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketIn accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non-jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form #Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice Regarding Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (kcv, ) (Entered: 04/20/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDEMAND for Trial by Jury by Optima Direct, LLC. (kcv, ) (Entered: 04/20/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase Assigned to District Judge Michael J. Truncale. (kcv, ) (Entered: 04/20/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#3) Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Anderson, Kirk) (Entered: 04/19/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#2) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Optima Direct, LLC (Anderson, Kirk) (Entered: 04/19/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#1) COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against Panasonic Corporation of North America ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0540-8366114.), filed by Optima Direct, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Anderson, Kirk) Modified Exhibit titles on 4/20/2021 (kcv, ). (Entered: 04/19/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases