Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. U.S. Cellular Corporation
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-12313
Date Filed: 5/25/2011
Judge: Hon. Julian A. Cook
Status: Closed

On May 25, 2011, Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against U.S. Cellular Corporation (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,606,361 (“the ‘361 patent”) and 5,724,092 (“the ‘092 patent”). The ‘361 and ‘092 patents generally covered different interactive mailbox facilities that could be utilized by videophones. “Videophones” is “any device having the capabilities to receive video/voice and or video/text as its primary function and which, in the future, may have additional capabilities added to it that will enable it to perform functions that a PC computer system performs today” and includes cellular videophones, wireless videophones, and all videophones integrated with additional PC capabilities or technologies (i.e., disk storage, CDs, diskettes, and memory in megabyte range).

Plaintiff alleged that many of Defendant’s products infringed on Plaintiff’s patents and that Defendant induced infringement and/or engaged in acts of contributory infringement. Plaintiff explained that Defendant infringed on the patents in the following ways: Defendant provided a mobile TV and video service that acted as a mailbox facility system that users could access on their videophones; Defendant provided a mobile music service that acted as a mailbox facility system that users could access on their videophones; Defendant provided a Video Clips service that acted as a mailbox facility system; and Defendant provided a service called easy edge that acted as a mailbox facility system for users to view and use ringtones, games, videos and other applications on their videophones. Plaintiff asked for the following relief: a permanent injunction, damages, treble damages for Defendant’s intentional and willful infringement of the patents, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court saw as proper. .On August 2, 2011, the District Court issued a Stipulated Order for Transfer of Case, explaining that the parties jointly came to the conclusion that the Northern District of Illinois was a more appropriate venue.