John B. Adrain v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al (2014): 2:14-cv-00936
Mr. Polasek represented Adrain in IP litigation regarding a series of patent litigations asserting infringement of US Patent 5,831,669 related to image recognition technology against numerous companies. These litigations were filed in the Eastern District of Texas between 2008 and 2016. One of the cases, John B. Adrain v. Vigilant Video, Inc. and The City of Port Arthur, Texas, (2:10-cv-173) involved license plate recognition systems. Mr. Polasek, as lead counsel, handled all aspects of discovery, motion practice, and briefed and argued the claim construction positions of Adrain at the Markman hearing. The Court subsequently construed the patent claims (See here). The case 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 settled shortly after the Court’s claim construction opinion.
Corydoras Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al (2015) 2:15-cv-00432
Mr. Polasek represented Corydoras in a patent infringement action, charging the defendants with infringement of 6 patents involving wireless devices. The parties reached a confidential settlement after the claim construction hearing.
Jimmy J. Fulks v. Brunswick Corporation, et. al. (2004) 2:04-cv-00382
Mr. Polasek and his firm represented the plaintiff, asserting two patents related to boat hull and stringer design in a suit filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The case involved assertions of patent infringement and ancillary bankruptcy proceedings. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement.
Levine v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et. al. (2009) 2:09-cv-00372Mr. Polasek represented the patent owner in two cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas, charging multiple phone manufacturers and cellular service providers with infringement of two patents related to cellular phone technology. The case was vigorously litigated through fact and expert discovery. Mr. Polasek briefed and argued the claim construction positions of the plaintiff, and the Court issued a claim construction ruling. (See Claim Construction Ruling.) The parties entered into confidential settlements.
Morris Reese v. Aastra Technologies Limited, et. al. (2003) 2:03-cv-00267
Mr. Polasek and his law firm represented the patent owner in case filed in the Eastern District of Texas against cellular service providers and mobile phone manufacturers involving a patent related to caller ID. The parties entered into confidential settlements.
Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Steven J. Orosz, Jr. and Charles F. Schroeder, (2003) 03CV-1738.
Mr. Polasek and his firm defended the patent owners in a declaratory judgment action filed against them in the Northern District of Illinois by a large tool company. The company sought a declaration that it did not infringe defendant’s patent covering laser level technology. Mr. Polasek lead the team in obtaining a successful claim construction (see Claim Construction Ruling), and ultimately the parties entered into a confidential settlement.
Tune Hunter, Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC et. al. (2009) 2:09-cv-00148
Mr. Polasek’s client asserted its patent covering music identification technology against cell phone manufacturers, cellular service provides and digital music providers in the Eastern District of Texas. Mr. Polasek successfully defeated the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See Order) Shortly thereafter, the parties entered into confidential settlement agreements.
Gaits of Gold, Inc. and Brenda Imus v. Circle Y Saddles, Inc.: (2010) 4:10-cv-03785
Mr. Polasek represented the defendant, a company that makes fine leather goods such as horse saddles, accused of trademark and trade name 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, dismissing the case based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel. (See Opinion and Order)
Mobili Malerba SNC, d/b/a/ Malerba Furniture, and Cantoni, LP v. Total Furniture, LLC (2006) 4:06-cv-00916
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.
Riles v. Amerada Hess Corporation (1998) G-98-013
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. The defendant moved to dismiss, asserting that the patent owner’s remedy was to sue the U.S. government pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1498. Mr. Polasek researched and drafted the briefing in opposition to Defendant’s motion. The Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Wavefront Energy and Environmental Services, Inc. v. Applied Seismic Research Corporation
Mr. Polasek was part of the legal team representing Wavefront in IP litigation matters related to its oil tool technology.