This case was last updated from PACER on 08/03/2021 at 07:57:53 (UTC).

Optinetix Inc. v. Kohl's Inc.

Case Summary

On June 4, 2021, Optinetix Inc. (“Optinetix” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Kirk Anderson of Budo Law PC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Kohl’s Inc. (“Kohl’s” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, for the alleged infringement of Patent-in-suit, owned by the 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 Defendant’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,668 titled “Systems and methods for embedding commercial information into broadcast media” (the ’668 Patent), (the “Patent-in-Suit”).

 

In its complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that “Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale and sells in the U.S. products, systems, and/or services that infringe the Patent-in-Suit, including, but not limited to the Kohl’s mobile app for iOS and Android (the “Accused Products” or “Accused Instrumentality”). The Accused Instrumentality is a mobile application for selling products, including but not limited to food products and groceries. Defendant provides and distributes digital coupons for its registered users via the mobile application.” 

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that “Without a license or permission from Plaintiff, Defendant has infringed and continues to directly and indirectly infringe on one or more claims of the ’668 Patent 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 ’668 systems and methods, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that “Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement by others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’668 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.”

 

The only claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff is for the alleged infringement of ’668 Patent, wherein the Plaintiff claimed that, Defendant knew the Accused Product infringes the ’668 Patent and yet Defendant induced and continues to induce others to directly infringe at least one claim of the ’668 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant took active steps to induce infringement, such as advertising an infringing use, which supports a finding of an intention and despite its knowledge of the ’668 Patent, Defendant has sold the Accused Product in egregious disregard of Plaintiff’s patent rights. 

 

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court to adjudicate that the Defendant has directly infringed one or more claims of each of the ’668 Patent, and award Plaintiff all damages adequate to compensate it for the Defendant’s infringement, including all prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law. The Plaintiff further requested the Court to award treble damages, issue a preliminary injunction and thereafter a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant from further acts of infringement of the ’668 Patent and grant costs of the 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.




Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:21-CV-00275

  • Filing Date:

    06/04/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

  • Courthouse:

    Texas Eastern District

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Michael J. Truncale

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Optinetix Inc.

Defendant

Kohl's Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Kirk Anderson

Attorney at Budo Law PC - CO

5610 Ward Rd, Suite 300

Arvada, CO 80002

 

Court Documents

#6

(#6) SUMMONS issued and emailed to plaintiff's attorney for service as to Kohl's Inc.. (bjc, ) (Entered: 08/02/2021)

5 #1

Text of Proposed Order

#5

(#5) MOTION to Change Venue to Sherman Division by Optinetix Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Anderson, Kirk) (Entered: 07/31/2021)

#4

(#4) ORDER directing plaintiff, within 30 days, to serve the defendant pursuant to FRCP 4(m). Signed by District Judge Michael J. Truncale on 7/21/21. (tkd, ) (Entered: 07/21/2021)

#3

(#3) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Optinetix Inc. (Anderson, Kirk) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

#2

(#2) 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: 06/04/2021)

1 #6

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #5

Exhibit

1 #4

Exhibit

1 #3

Exhibit

1 #2

Exhibit B

1 #1

Exhibit A

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against Kohl's Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0540-8441018.), filed by Optinetix Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Anderson, Kirk) Modified on 6/4/2021 (bjc, ). (Entered: 06/04/2021)

3 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) SUMMONS issued and emailed to plaintiff's attorney for service as to Kohl's Inc.. (bjc, ) (Entered: 08/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) MOTION to Change Venue to Sherman Division by Optinetix Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Anderson, Kirk) (Entered: 07/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) ORDER directing plaintiff, within 30 days, to serve the defendant pursuant to FRCP 4(m). Signed by District Judge Michael J. Truncale on 7/21/21. (tkd, ) (Entered: 07/21/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • 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. (bjc, ) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • DocketCase assigned to District Judge Michael J. Truncale. (bjc, ) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • DocketDEMAND for Trial by Jury by Optinetix Inc.. (bjc, ) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Optinetix Inc. (Anderson, Kirk) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) 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: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against Kohl's Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0540-8441018.), filed by Optinetix Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Anderson, Kirk) Modified on 6/4/2021 (bjc, ). (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Kohls Corp is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Kirk Anderson