Case Name: Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Samsung Telecomm’ns America, LLC
Docket Name: 2:2011-cv-12945
Date Filed: 7/7/2011
Judge: Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Status: Closed
Disclosure: Dickinson Wright, PLLC is counsel for the Defendant in this case

On July 7, 2011, Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“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” are defined as “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, including its 4G videophones, infringed on Plaintiff’s patents. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant induced infringement and/or engaged in acts of contributory infringement. Plaintiff explained that Defendant infringed on the patents by providing an application service for users to view, download, and use applications, music and books on their videophones; the system included a central data center that processed information and facilitated and supported the purchase and delivery of applications and other products.

Plaintiff asked for the following relief: a judgment that Defendant infringed, induced infringement, and contributed to the infringement of Plaintiff’s ’092 and ’361 patents; a permanent injunction; that defendant account for damages; that Defendant pay Plaintiff all damages necessary to compensate plaintiff, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the infringement of the patents; 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 December 21, 2011, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order Withdrawing Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike Affirmative Defenses. On February 21, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexamination of the ‘092 and ‘361 patents. On March 28, 2012, the court granted Defendant’s Motion to Stay, pending reexamination by the PTO of Plaintiff’s ‘092 and ‘361 patents. On April 3, 2013, the court entered an Order Lifting Stay. On December 27, 2013, the court entered a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal.