REPRESENTATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CASE LIST
Mr. Polasek has represented parties in a variety of cases related to telecommunication communications, smartphones, apps, laptops, and tablets. For example, Mr. Polasek represented the below patent holders in various patent infringement lawsuits. The Corydoras cases involved the infringement of 6 patents involving mobile phone, laptop, and tablet functionality. The Levine cases, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, charged multiple phone manufacturers and cellular service providers with the infringement of two patents related to cellular phone technology. The Reese case, filed against cellular service providers and mobile phone manufacturers, involved a patent related to caller ID technology. Mr. Polasek was the lead attorney in each of these cases. All cases ended with the parties entering into confidential settlements.
- Alfred B. Levine v. Casio America, Inc. et al.
- Alfred B. Levine v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et al
- Amazon.com Inc. v. Corydoras Technologies, LLC
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al.
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE USA
- Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al.
- Morris Reese v. Aastra Telecom U.S., Inc., et al
Mr. Polasek represented a company that manufactured aftermarket auto parts against claims of patent infringement in the Middle District of Florida. Mr. Polasek developed a non-infringement defense that ultimately resulted in the patent owner agreeing that there was no infringement.
- CF Advance Corp. v. Thrasher
Mr. Polasek represented a leading manufacturer of marine and outdoor speakers in a case against a competitor filed in the Southern District of Texas. The case resulted in the competitor agreeing to redesign its product.
- Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Elettromedia S.R.L.
Boat String Design
Mr. Polasek represented the inventor (owner of a boat manufacturing company), asserting two patents related to boat hull and stringer design in several suits filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The cases also involved ancillary bankruptcy proceedings in Florida. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement.
- Jimmy J. Fulks v. Brunswick Corporation, et. al.
- Jimmy J. Fulks v. Chris Craft Corporation
- Jimmy J. Fulks v. Crownline Boats, Inc.
- Jimmy J. Fulks v. Marinemax TX, L.P., et al.
Image Recognition and Automobile Forward-Collision Warning
Mr. Polasek represented the inventor in a series of patent litigations asserting patent infringement related to image recognition technology (such as license plate recognition) against numerous companies. These litigations were filed in the Eastern District of Texas between 2008 and 2016. In one of the cases, Adrain v. Platescan, et al., (2:08-cv-423) involving license plate recognition systems, Mr. Polasek, as lead counsel, handled all aspects of these cases including the claim construction hearing. The Court subsequently construed the patent claims (see here). The case was settled shortly before trial. In another case, Adrain v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., (2:14-cv-00936), the Adrain patent was asserted against Honda’s forward-collision warning systems. Mr. Polasek handled this case from start to finish, briefing and arguing the claim construction issues. The Court issued a claim construction ruling in that case. That case was resolved shortly after the Court’s claim construction opinion.
- John B. Adrain v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al
- John B. Adrain v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al
- John B. Adrain v. Panasonic Corporation of North America
- John B. Adrain v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
- John B. Adrain v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., et al.
- John B. Adrain v. Genetec Inc.; PIPS Technology Inc.; Elsag North America LLC; Platescan, Inc. and The City of Plano, Texas
- John B. Adrain v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Mexicana S.A. De C.V.
Mr. Polasek represented the defendant, a company that makes fine leather goods such as horse saddles, accused of trademark and tradename infringement, dilution, and unfair competition in the Southern District of Texas. Mr. Polasek and his team, on behalf of the defendant, quickly moved for dismissal of the case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motion and dismissed the case.
- Gaits of Gold, Inc. and Brenda Imus v. Circle Y Saddles, Inc.
Mr. Polasek represented a trademark owner on a Lanham Act dispute with a competitor.
- Biomax Cosmetics, Inc. v. Cosmax Corporation
Mr. Polasek defended the defendant in a case filed in the Southern District of Texas against claims of false designation of origin and false representation, trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition related to furniture being sold by the defendant. After numerous hearings with the Court, the parties resolved the matter.
- Mobili Malerba SNC, d/b/a/ Malerba Furniture, & Cantoni, LP v. Total Furniture, LLC
Mr. Polasek represented a company in a domain name dispute.
- Lufkin Industries, LLC v. Michael Frank/Houston Pump and Gear Repair/Laurel Parks
Mr. Polasek represented the patent owner in a patent dispute related to earth-moving equipment technology.
- 0728862 B.C. Ltd. v. Zachary Dozier d/b/a Doziers Excavating and Hauling
Fitness Devices and Systems
Mr. Polasek represented the patent owner, a small business, in a patent dispute related to health and fitness tracking apps and systems.
- Fat Statz, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al –
Mr. Polasek represented the patent owner, an oilfield tool manufacturer, in a patent infringement case filed against a competitor over oilfield tool technology.
- Power Feed-Thru Systems & Connectors, LLC v. Sonic Connectors, Ltd.
Mr. Polasek represented Tyger Manufacturing, the patent owner and manufacturer of pipes, in a dispute with a competitor related to a pipe design. Mr. Polasek argued the claim construction positions at the Markman hearing, resulting in favorable claim construction.
- Tyger Manufacturing LLC v. Mike’s Worldwide LLC, et al.
Advanced Process Control
Mr. Polasek represented a trade secret owner in a trade secret dispute related to improvements in advanced process control of the making of chips.
- InSyst, Ltd. v. Applied Materials, Inc., et al.
Mr. Polasek defended the patent owners in a declaratory judgment action filed against them in the Northern District of Illinois by a large tool company seeking a declaration that it did not infringe the defendants’ patent covering laser levels technology. Mr. Polasek led the team in obtaining a successful claim construction, and ultimately the parties entered into a confidential settlement.
- Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Steven J. Orosz, Jr. and Charles F. Schroeder
Golf Course Distance to Pin Tech
Mr. Polasek represented the patent owner in a dispute related to golf course distance determining technology implemented in golf carts to determine “distance to the pin.” The case was vigorously litigated by the parties for several years, including an appeal to the Federal Circuit.
- Optimal Recreation Solutions, LLP, d/b/a/ Optimal Golf Solutions
Music Identification Software
Mr. Polasek’s client successfully asserted its patent covering music identification technology against cell phone manufacturers, cellular service providers, and digital music providers in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Tune Hunter, Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, et al.
Mr. Polasek was part of the legal team representing the owner of a patent covering technology related to the installation of offshore oil drilling platforms in a suit filed in the Southern District of Texas.
- Riles v. Amerada Hess Corporation