Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LASER DESIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. BJ CRYSTAL

September 21, 2005.

LASER DESIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC and NORWOOD OPERATING COMPANY, Plaintiffs,
v.
BJ CRYSTAL, INC., a California corporation; CRYSTAL MAGIC, INC., a Florida corporation; U.C. LASER, INC., a New Jersey corporation; VITRO LASER GROUP U.S.A., INC., a Nevada corporation; JIMAC MARKETING, INC., a Canadian corporation; HIRSCH GIFT INC., a Connecticut corporation; C. STIEFELMAYER GMBH & Co. KG, a German limited liability partnership; CERION GMBH, a German limited liability company; CRYSTAL CAPTURE INC., a Texas corporation; CRYSTAL CAPTURE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; G.W. PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation; HIRSCH GIFT INC., a Texas corporation; VISIONS IN CRYSTAL, INC., a California corporation; VITRO LASER GMBH, a German limited liability company; VITRO INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; VITRO USA, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; MERITAGE GRAPHICS, INC., a Nevada corporation; 3DLI, Inc., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1-20, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JEFFREY WHITE, District Judge

CONSENT JUDGMENT AGAINST HIRSCH GIFT INC.

Thomas J. Friel, Jr., Brian E. Mitchell, and Anthony J. Patek of Cooley Godward LLP for Plaintiffs, and Kenneth B. Wilson, K.C. Allan, Sarah Piepmeirer, and Stefani Shanberg for Hirsch Gift Inc. The Honorable Jeffrey S. White, U.S. District Court Judge, presiding.

  I. BACKGROUND

  This case involves a dispute over the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,206,496 C1 by Hirsch Gift Inc. of Texas ("Hirsch") and other defendants through their manufacture and sale of "Laser Crystal Products" and/or the devices used to make those products. "Laser Crystal Products" are decorative objects that contain internal images that have been created inside a transparent medium (including without limitation a glass cube) using a laser.

  In general terms, plaintiffs Laser Design International, LLC ("LDI") and Norwood Operating Company ("Norwood") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege that the patent-in-suit discloses and claims an invention entitled "Sub-Surface Marking"; that it teaches how to make controlled marks within the interior space of transparent materials such as glass without altering any of the surfaces of the material using sub-surface marking technology. The patent-in-suit was originally issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,206,496 on April 27, 1993; it was subsequently reexamined and deemed patentable with a reexamination certificate (U.S. Patent No. 5,206,496 C1 or the "'496-C1 patent"), which issued on November 19, 2002.

  Plaintiffs allege that LDI is the owner of and Norwood is the exclusive licensee (in certain market segments) of the '496-C1 patent. Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated action against Hirsch and other defendants, alleging that defendants infringe one or more claims of the '496-C1 patent.

  LDI, Norwood, and Hirsch ("the Parties") have now agreed to settle the controversy between them based on certain terms and conditions, have agreed to this Consent Judgment, and request that this Consent Judgment be entered by this Court. II. CONSENT JUDGMENT

  Rather than continuing with the litigation, the Parties have agreed to settle the controversy between them and have consented to the entry of the following judgment by this Court. However, should this Court decline to enter this Consent Judgment (in unmodified form) within 90 days of its submission or should this Court enter a modified Consent Judgment, Plaintiffs may, at their election, decide to (1) treat this as a failure of a material condition of settlement, (2) submit a modified Consent Judgment, in accordance with the Court's instruction (if any), or (3) waive this condition (with the effect of keeping the settlement in force).

  A. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  HIRSCH ADMITS, AND ON THAT BASIS IT IS FOUND, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

  1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States.

  2. Jurisdiction of this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

  3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Hirsch, and venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(c).

  4. All claims of the '496-C1 patent are valid and enforceable in this cause of action or any different causes of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.