Computerized Valet Parking Systems Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit against AVPM

Computerized Valet Parking Systems, Inc., the inventor and market leader of today's popular valet parking technology, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Automated Valet Parking Manager LLC (AVPM). The legal action today will be used to enforce compliance regarding CVPS' patents involving the process of capturing the pre-existing physical condition of a vehicle in order to determine the origin of damage.

March 24, 2009 − Computerized Valet Parking Systems, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Automated Valet Parking Manager LLC (AVPM) in the U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit).

CVPS, known as the inventor and market leader of today's popular valet parking technology, developed the proprietary technology back in the mid-1990's, initially to better manage its own parking operations. "The idea of using a computerized valet parking system to manage a valet parking operation raised a lot of eye-brows back then and for the most part was viewed as somewhat comical or overkill. Since then, this technology has completely transformed the industry," said Kai Schuette, founder and CEO of CVPS.

"They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," said Andrew Preas, President of CVPS," but we're not in business to be flattered. We've heard from more than a few clients who've expressed surprise at how much the AVPM product resembles ours."

"We took all of the risk and have invested a lot of time and money into these innovative parking technologies that now save the industry millions of dollars every year. As such, we deserve the appropriate protection afforded by law," said Kai Schuette.

"Our legal action today will be used to enforce compliance. We are very serious about this issue. AVPM and its clients, who have been sold a bill of goods, will have to defend their transaction and risk being held liable for substantial damages. At the end of the day, we're more than happy to compete based on the merits of our product and the satisfaction of our clients," said Andrew Preas. "We certainly can't prevent people from trying to duplicate our successful model, but we won't tolerate blatant disregard of our intellectual property rights."

The lawsuit, "CVPS, Incorporated v. Automated Valet Parking Manager, LLC" (case number 2:2009cv11054) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division and has been assigned to the Honorable Julian Cook. No trial date has been set.

CVPS received its first two patents (#5,710,557 and #6,630,893) in 1998 and 2001, covering over 63 claims including today's popular method of capturing the pre-existing physical condition of a vehicle in order to determine the origin of damage. Claim #3 (for example) of the '893 patent reads as follows:
"A method for managing a computerized valet parking system, the method comprising the steps of: linking pre-parking digital images of a vehicle to a first set of valet parking data in an electronic database, the pre-parking digital images documenting a physical condition of the vehicle when the vehicle is parked by a first valet attendant; retrieving the pre-parking digital images from the electronic database based on the first set of valet parking data; and determining whether damage occurred to the vehicle before the first valet attendant parked the vehicle based on the pre-parking digital images."

In March of 2008, CVPS received news that its application to broaden the '893 had been examined and allowed by the U.S. Patent Office. Throughout the 2 year application review process, the U.S. Patent office also examined several claims by others, seeking to invalidate the original '557 patent. The examiner found no merit and voided claims of prior art, further strengthening and underlining CVPS's patent validity.

About Computerized Valet Parking Systems, Inc.

Computerized Valet Parking Systems, Inc. (CVPS) is the inventor of today's popular high tech valet parking management system. Designed by an operator with over 25 years of valet parking management experience, CVPS provides the tools to move traditional valet parking operations to a new plateau. A valet operator can use CVPS to provide superior VIP customer service, streamline operations, minimize damage claims, track operations, and quantify employee performance.

CVPS is a technology solutions provider with close to 400 installations in most major cities across the US, Canada, Australia and Dubai. Client locations include casinos, hotels, airports, office buildings, off airport parking, shopping malls, residential communities - most every possible parking application.
Service Tracking Systems, Inc. is the parent company of Computerized Valet Parking Systems, Inc.
For more information, visit us at Servicetrackingsystems.net.

###

GEOSPAN Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit and Declaratory Judgment Against Pictometry International

GEOSPAN Corporation alleges that Pictometry International Corporation of Rochester, NY has infringed and is continuing to infringe GEOSPAN's U.S. Patent No. 5,633,946, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Collecting and Processing Visual and Spatial Position Information from a Moving Platform."

March 26, 2008 − GEOSPAN Corporation announced today that it has filed a patent infringement and declaratory judgment lawsuit against Pictometry International Corporation of Rochester, NY. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleges that Pictometry has infringed and is continuing to infringe GEOSPAN's U.S. Patent No. 5,633,946, which issued in 1997 and is entitled, "Method and Apparatus for Collecting and Processing Visual and Spatial Position Information from a Moving Platform."

In its Complaint, GEOSPAN asks the court to award monetary damages for Pictometry's past infringement and an injunction to prevent any infringing activity going forward. The lawsuit also seeks a declaratory judgment that Pictometry's U.S. Patent No. 5,247,356 is not infringed by GEOSPAN and that one or more claims of Pictometry's patent are invalid.

GEOSPAN’s GEOVISTA® Multi-Angle Imaging™ technology, pioneered by the company in the early 1990's, is used for collecting direct georeferenced imagery and a survey technique now known as Direct Image Photogrammetric Measurement using multiple "Any Aspect" cameras.

Embodiments of this technology are described in GEOSPAN’s U.S. Patent No. 5,633,946 and in patents in Australia, Canada, and Europe.

Direct Image Photogrammetric Measurement uses advanced georeferenced (e.g., orientation and GPS-enabled) camera technology for image surveying. Rapid, close-range surveys can be implemented with multiple, high-resolution cameras to obtain both detail and accuracy without the need for ground control. Image position and orientation data can be captured in real time when images are captured.

Hence, a database of these survey-ready images can be accessed at the desktop where any object can be measured, and its 3D real-world position can be accurately reported and inventoried. The capability to efficiently capture, view, and measure massive amounts of visual information from the air and ground has become a critical capability for local government and national visual map search companies. This capability has also become an integral component of real estate buying and selling and future navigation applications.

###

Harley-Davidson Sued for Patent Infringement

A lawsuit has been filed in Federal Court in Los Angeles against Harley-Davidson for infringement of a patent for providing multi-colored lighting for speedometers and tachometers. The suit was filed by inventor and patent attorney Frank Weyer, who successfully sued Ford under the same patent for using a multi-colored instrument lighting system in the 2005 Ford Mustang. The suit seeks damages and an injunction prohibiting Harley from selling any more of its combination speedometer/tachometer with "color matched lighting," a $499 option available for some 2007 model year Harleys.

April 24, 2007 − Frank Weyer, an inventor and patent attorney based in Beverly Hills, announced today that he has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Harley-Davidson Motor Company for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,975,728 entitled "Method and Apparatus for Providing User Selectable Multi-Color Automobile Instrument Panel Illumination." The patent covers a system for providing user-selectable multi-color lighting to instrument panel instruments such as speedometers and tachometers. According to the complaint filed by Weyer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Civil Action No. CV-07-2502 DDP(Ex)), Harley-Davidson is infringing Weyer's patent by selling its Model Nos. 74676-07 and 74677-07 combination speedometer/tachomethers incorporating "color matched lighting" that are available as a $499 option on certain 2007 model year Harleys.

Harley-Davidson is not the first company sued by Weyer under his patent. Two years ago, Weyer sued Ford Motor Company in the same court for infringing his patent for offering the "MyColor" multi-color instrument lighting option in Ford's then newly introduced 2005 Ford Mustang (Civil Action No. 04-08630 CBM). After Weyer filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, Ford agreed to take a license under the patent. The terms of the Ford license are confidential.

Weyer says he intends to use the same strategy he used against Ford in his new suit against Harley-Davidson. "It's unfortunate that large companies such as Ford and Harley seem to think they have a right to use other people's patented technology at will, especially if the patents are owned by individual inventors. Fortunately, I'm a practicing patent attorney and litigator, so I can take legal action and am not at all impressed by litigation tactics of large companies and large law firms. Unfortunately, that is not the case for most small inventors, who often cannot afford to go up against large companies to enforce their patents."

On the other hand, Weyer is also not looking for a windfall. "On the other side, there are plaintiffs, not so much in the patent area, but especially in products liability, personal injury, and medical malpractice cases, who look at lawsuits as a way to win a lottery, and seek exaggerated damages for sometimes trumped up complaints." Weyer says that that is not the case here. "All I am looking for is reasonable compensation for use of my patented technology. However, if my opponent refuses to be reasonable, then I will take whatever action is necessary to enforce my rights. And the more force I have expended, the more expensive reasonable compensation becomes."

In the Ford lawsuit, Ford decided to take a patent license early in the litigation. Weyer says it would probably be to Harley's benefit to do the same. "Patent litigation is extremely expensive, especially if large law firms are involved. 'Running rates' of $50,000 to $100,000 a month or more are not at all uncommon. Although law firms like litigation and the attorneys' fees that are generated, for companies and stockholders, lawsuits are bottomless money pits. There are usually two opportunities to settle lawsuits: at the very beginning, and at the very end, just before trial. The smart choice, when faced with a meritorious complaint, is to settle early. Ford was smart. It will be interesting to see whether Harley is, as well."

###

JWC Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit against Franklin Miller

JWC Environmental, a leading manufacturer of wastewater treatment equipment, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Franklin Miller, Inc. of Livingston, NJ and JBI Water and Wastewater, Inc. of El Dorado Hills, CA.

August 18, 2006 − JWC Environmental, a leading manufacturer of wastewater treatment equipment, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Franklin Miller, Inc. of Livingston, NJ and JBI Water and Wastewater, Inc. of El Dorado Hills, CA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 11, 2006. Case number C06-04864 MMC-U.S. District Court, No. District of California, San Jose Division.

The patent infringement lawsuit, which identifies Franklin Miller's Spiralift SC® screenings washer products, charges Franklin Miller with willful infringement of JWCE's United States Patent No. 7,080,650. JWCE is asking the court to enjoin Franklin Miller and JBI from infringing the company's patent and for unspecified compensation for damages.

JWCE's patented technology is incorporated in its award winning Screenings Washer Monster® (SWM), which grinds, washes and compacts solids removed from wastewater, producing a cleaner, drier and virtually odor free discharged material.

The SWM includes a dual-shafted Muffin Monster® grinder that preconditions captured solids by reducing their size to allow the washing system to remove soft organics entrained in trash and rags. Soft organics are washed back into the plant flow where they belong while unwanted debris is compacted and dewatered, then discharged into a dumpster, ready for landfill disposal or incineration.

JWCE's product innovation has been recognized several times by the Water Environment Federation (WEF) with four Innovative Technology Awards - the wastewater industry's most prestigious honor. The SWM won the award for 2001 and was recognized again this year when WEF gave the award to the Monster Separation System™, which incorporates the SWM, pairing it with a fine screen for a complete solids removal and processing system.

There are nearly 150 SWMs installed at wastewater treatment plants around the world.

###

Oakley and Motorola Sued for Infringement of Sunglass Headphone Patent

USAmerican LLC of Beverly Hills has filed a complaint for patent infringement against Oakley and Motorola alleging that the "Razrwire" sunglass/bluetooth headset product marketed jointly by Oakley and Motorola infringes a patent issued in 1990 for "Sunglass Headphones."

January 4, 2006 − USAmerican LLC of Beverly Hills announced today that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Oakley, Inc. and Motorola, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the popular "Razrwire" sunglasses and headset combination jointly marketed by Oakley and Motorola infringes U.S. Patent No. 4,902,120 ("the '120 patent"). The lawsuit, Civil Action No. CV06-0010 CAS (SSx) was filed in Los Angeles on January 3, 2006.

The '120 patent was filed in November 1988 by Frank Weyer, an attorney and engineer, who was annoyed by his earphones falling out while jogging. While jogging past the UN building in New York City, Mr. Weyer came up with the idea of attaching earphones to his sunglasses, thereby keeping them comfortably in place.

After the '120 patent issued in February 1990, Mr. Weyer formed a company, American Innovative Products, Inc., to market his invention. Advertising in running magazines and at running events, Mr. Weyer sold several thousand pairs of his sunglasses/earphone product, which were called "Cruisers (TM)." Mr. Weyer also licensed his invention to Virtual I/O, who used the patented earphone mounting system in a virtual reality goggle product called "Iglasses."

In 1994, Oakley unsuccessfully sued Mr. Weyer's company for patent infringement, alleging that the sunglasses American Innovative Products was using infringed on several Oakley patents. Mr. Weyer, who is a patent attorney, countersued, pointing out that if what Oakley alleged was true, Oakley's patents were invalid. Oakley quickly dropped the case.

"In the early 1990's, sunglasses with earphones were ahead of their time," explained Mr. Weyer. "Now, with the convergence of leisure activities and technology, their time has finally come."

The irony of his company suing Oakley for patent infringement over ten years after Oakley sued his company is not lost on Mr. Weyer. "Oakley is known for filing multiple patent applications, obtaining patents of questionable validity, and aggressively asserting those patents, mostly against small companies, in an effort to prevent competition with its generally good quality but greatly overpriced products. There is some justice in Oakley finally getting a taste of its own medicine."

Mr. Weyer recently formed his new company, USAmerican LLC, to produce and market an updated version of the "Cruisers" product, as well as an MP3 player/sunglasses product to compete with Oakley's popular "Thump" product. "Our product," says Mr. Weyer, "will be lower cost, more comfortable, look better, and sound better than Oakley's Thump. We are calling the product 'Stompers', and our motto will be 'Why only thump, when you can stomp!'"

Mr. Weyer, inventor on more than 10 patents, is not a stranger to patent lawsuits against large companies. Last year, he successfully sued Ford for infringement of his patent for changing the color of automobile instrument panel illumination, used in the wildly successful new Ford Mustang. The year before that, he successfully sued Register.com and Network Solutions for infringement of an internet domain name naming system.

# # #

Trouvé Enterprises Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Snap Saver LLC

1995 Letter from alleged infringer, Kate Adams, construed as evidence of willful intent to infringe. Trouvé Enterprises ready to go to necessary lengths to protect their intellectual property.

April 1, 2005 − Trouvé Enterprises v. Snapsaver LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case number 2:04-cv-4538.

Trouvé Enterprises (troovay) makes a plastic food storage container that solves the age-old problem of lost lids and cluttered drawers. The lids attach to the bottom of each container while not in use, and they nest that way. Snap Saver, also a manufacturer of food storage, attempts to address similar problems, allegedly with unauthorized use of patented technology.

According to Josie Celio co-owner of Trouvé Enterprises, Snap Saver infringes on two patents, both exclusively licensed to Trouvé. In fact, Brian Tenney, owner of one of the patents saved a letter from 1995 in which Kate Adams, creator of Snap Saver, admits to having come across his idea. The letter, which Tenney saved, reads:

Dear Brian & Kerry,

No, you don’t know me from Adam- but I was in the process of doing a patent search on a food storage container when I came across your idea. I would be most grateful for an opportunity to discuss this with you. I am hoping you will call me collect at (phone number) days or (phone number) /nights. I look forward to hearing from you at your soonest convenience.

Thank you,

Kate Adams

No deal was struck between the two parties, but that didn’t stop Adams from manufacturing the product and claiming to be the inventor. In reality, the two Trouvé patents existed almost 8 years prior to Adams product.

As Adams will point out, she has a patent, but the problem is that it includes whats called prior art. Any IP attorney will tell you that just because you have a patent doesnt mean you can produce a product without infringing." Says Celio. Specifically, you cannot make a product that uses prior art protected by existing patents.

According to Allison Ford, also co/owner of Trouvé, Snap Saver ignored their attempts to contact them for an amicable resolution, forcing them to file suit, which they did about 6 months ago.

Then an ironic twist brought the two parties together at the training class for a major television-shopping channel. Adams and Celio found themselves facing each other through the entire class. After a somewhat awkward but cordial encounter, Adams attorney contacted Trouves attorney requesting a licensing agreement. Unfortunately, it appears that it was just a stalling ploy, because they never responded to the submitted offer and violated the terms by airing with the television retailer.

Both Allison and Myself are working moms and we took out second mortgages to fund this project. Its difficult as it is to develop and take a product to market, without companies blatantly ignoring intellectual property laws." Says Celio.

Ford agrees, Based on the correspondence, we can only assume that they (Snap Saver) knew about our patents and are willfully infringing. Ill just be relieved when all of this is settled."
Trouvé Food Storage Containers are protected by U.S. patent numbers 5,184,745 and 4,951,832 and can be seen at www.savethelids.com

Josie Celio and Allison Ford reside in Northern California and can be reached at josafeen@starband.net, or (530)363-0391.

###

Travel Sentry Sued for Patent Infringement by Patent Holder

Travel Sentry, Inc., a company in the luggage lock business, has been sued for patent infringement by the inventor of US Patents 7,021,537 and 7,036,728. This patent infringement lawsuit will be decided by jury trial in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, NY (Case # 1:06-CV-06415).

February 27, 2007 - Travel Sentry, Inc. (travelsentry.org), a company in the luggage lock business, has been sued for patent infringement by the inventor of US Patents 7,021,537 and 7,036,728.

This patent infringement claim comes after Travel Sentry filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in New Hampshire seeking to squash inventor's rights. Travel Sentry's claim was thrown out of Federal Court in New Hampshire. They have since re-filed in New York.

TSA luggage locks allow air travelers to lock their checked bags while enabling Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Officers to unlock and inspect them, rather than clip travelers' luggage locks during a mandatory security inspection.

"I filed this patent infringement case for a very simple reason. The TSA Lock technology covered by US Patents 7,021,537 and 7,036,728 is being knowingly and unfairly exploited," said David Tropp, the inventor of these patents.

Through his company, Safe Skies LLC, Mr. Tropp practices his innovation by making his patented TSA Lock system available to the traveling public.

Mr. Tropp, an entrepreneur in his mid-twenties, developed an innovative system for making airline luggage inspection secure while accommodating the needs of the traveler. The United States Patent and Trademark Office recognized Mr. Tropp's innovation and issued two patents; one patent on April 4, 2006, and the other patent on May 2, 2006.

Tropp is seeking injunctive relief enjoining Travel Sentry and those working with them from infringing US Patents 7,021,537 and 7,036,728.

This patent infringement lawsuit will be decided by jury trial in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, NY (Case # 1:06-CV-06415).

###

IDC Files Patent Infringement Action against Home Depot

June 23, 2004 − International Development Corporation of Southlake, Texas has filed civil action no. 304-CV-1086-P against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

IDC's complaint asserts that Home Depot has infringed IDCs United States Patent No. D445,209 S by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing products, within the United States, with the patented designs of the '209 Patent, or colorable imitations thereof, applied thereto; actively inducing others to infringe the '209 Patent; and contributing to the infringement by others of the '209 Patent."

The patent in question claims the ornamental design of a solar lamp manufactured and sold by IDC. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorney’s fees. IDC is represented by Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP of Dallas, Texas.

###

T. Dosho Shifferaw, Inventor of Well-Known Fitness Equipment, Files Patent Infringement Suit

March 1, 2009 − T. Dosho Shifferaw, a leading inventor of fitness equipment, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Emson USA of New York, E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. of New York, Academy Sports & Outdoors of Texas and Amazon.com of Delaware in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division on February 19, 2009. Case number 2:09-cv-00054.

T. Dosho Shifferaw, Founder/President & CEO of Dosho Design, Inc., and law firms Moore Landrey of Austin, TX and Rhodes & Vela of San Antonio, TX, claim the recently introduced abdominal product called Ab Rocket infringes on two patents, both exclusively licensed to Shifferaw. After 25 years of inventing and manufacturing fitness equipment, including the renowned Bowflex®, Shifferaw is no stranger to the legalities of patent regulations. He currently holds 20 worldwide patents and five pending patents.

Shifferaw's patented technology, coined the "Lift-Assist System", consists of six Lift-Assist Powerbands making the full range of ab exercises, including the difficult reverse crunch, attainable by anyone. Over time, the user can reduce the amount of Powerbands as the abs and surrounding core muscles get stronger. The Lift-Assist System was originally featured on Shifferaw's Kathy Smith Ab-Lifter Plus®, marketed exclusively by Dosho Design in 2002. The System is now a component of Shifferaw's latest home gym, Dosho Gym 5000, and is currently being featured in TV commercials and on the company’s website.

The fitness machine in question, Ab Rocket, is presently being marketed in TV commercials and infomercials, on an eCommerce site and on Amazon.com. The Ab Rocket advertises that it "includes three sets of springs, or resistance cylinders, to be used for different levels of resistance for building and toning abdominal muscles". "Every time I see the commercial for the Ab Rocket it's like a kick in the stomach", says Shifferaw. "This country was built on the creative ideas and inventions of imaginative people and we need to maintain that tradition, now more than ever. This type of blatant infringement is unfortunate because it just discourages individuals from being inventive and entrepreneurial."

Shifferaw's technology is protected by patent numbers 7,137,933 and 6,716,144, which were issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office on November 21, 2006 and April 6, 2004. Shifferaw says he's ready to go to any length to protect his intellectual property and he's confident that justice will prevail.

###

Trial Date Set in Patent Infringement Suit against Google, Microsoft and AOL

The court has set a trial date in the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Bid for Position, LLC against Google, Microsoft, AOL and Miva for infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,225,151, "Online Auction Bid Management System and Method."

February 25, 2008 − The court has set a trial date in the lawsuit filed by Bid for Position, LLC against Google, Microsoft, AOL and Miva for infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,225,151, "Online Auction Bid Management System and Method." The lawsuit was filed on December 13, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and is set to go to trial on or before September 11th, 2008.

The Bid for Position patent covers the automated bid adjustment mechanism used by Google AdWords to generate most of Google's revenue. This mechanism automatically adjusts each advertiser's bids up and down, according to the rules specified by the advertiser. As competitors' bid prices increase, the advertiser's bid price automatically increases until it reaches the advertiser's specified "Maximum Bid". As competitors bids decrease or competitors drop out of the auction, the advertiser's bid price automatically decreases. The invention thereby provides each advertiser with the highest possible position in the search results for the lowest possible price. This automated bid adjustment process is one of the cornerstones of Google AdWords, and Microsoft adCenter.

patent valuation services | intellectual property consulting | el faro apostolico de brooklyn