Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

IAP Intermodal LLC v. AMR Corporation et al, No. 2:04-cv-00099 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2005)

See Opinion Disposition stated in the opinion
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:04-cv-00099
Decided
October 5, 2005
Judge
Document
Order (scanned)
Docket Entry
CONSENT JUDGMENT for deft AMR Corporation, American Airlines, Inc., AMR Eagle Holding Corp and American Eagle Airlines, Inc., all claims of infringement are dismissed without prejudice
Length
3 pages

iS DISTRICT COUR: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICI COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS = 5007-5 PH 3:09

MARSHALL DIVISION

IAP INTERMODAL, LIC, §

BY...

S

Plaintiff, § § Vv § Consolidated Civil Action

§ No A ed Gs § 1 LAF UC

NORTHWEST AIRLINES CORP 8 a CANTY BI AL; § §

Defendants. §

CONSENT JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS AMR CORPORATION,

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., AMR EAGLE HOLDING CORP.,

AND AMERICAN EAGLE ATRLINES, INC,

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

1 The Plaintiff, IAP Intermodal, LLC, (“IAP”), filed the present action against AMR Corporation, American Aizlines, Inc , AMR Eagle Holding Corp , and American Eagie Airlines, Inc , alleging infringement of US Patent Nos. 6,240,362, 6,385,537, and 6,411,897 (“Patents at Issue”) The Defendants have appeared in this action and deny infringement of any of the Patents at Issue 2 On September: 7, 2005, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order construing the

TU terms of the Patents atIissue (Dkt # 078 in the consolidated cases) Based upon the construction of the claims and the definition of terms contained in the Court’s Memorandum Opimion and Order, the Plaintiff IAP stipulates that the Defendants in this action are not infringing any of the claims of the Patents at Issne The Plaintiff IAP therefore consents to the entry of final judgment of nen-inflingement 3 Nothing herem shall limit or prevent [AP from exercising any Jegitimate right it may have to appeal thts Fidgment The Defendants in this action agree that they will not contest any appeal of

Vast: 299235]

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

2this Judgment on the ground that it was entered into by stipulation, or contend that this stipulation precludes an appeal of this matter in any way 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby enters Final Judgment as follows:

(a) Judgment is entereidn favor of the Defendants AMR Corporation, American Airlines, Inc., AMR Eagle Holding Corp, and American Eagle Airlines, Inc, on any and all claims of infringement set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint in this Action;

(b) All counterclaims and defenses asserted by the Defendants in this Action are hereby

dismissed without prejudice; and

(c)} Fach party shall bear its own costs and fees

byw Cobber s RO0S, Z STATES Heawed

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONIENT:

C08 —e

Carl R. Roth State Bat No 17312000 THE ROTH LAW FIRM

115 .N Wellington, Suite 200 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: 903/935-1665 Facsimile: 903/935-1797 D Scott Hemingway TX Bar No 094078380 Malcolm Pipes TX Bar No 24026061 Hemingway LLP S117 Preston Road. Suite 460

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

3Dallas, Texas 75225 (214)292 8301 Doyle W. Curry TX Bar No 5268000 Curry & Morin, LLP 20] West Houston St Marshall, Texas 75671 Telephone: (903)927:2277 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFE IAP INTERMODAL, LLC

Ofis Carroll State Bar No 03895700 Collin Maloney State Bar No 00794219 lreland, Carroll & Kelley, PC 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, [X 75703 Telephone: (903) 561-1600

Facsimile: (903) 581- 107d

ii brarnsig | pin errand

Oyun Wanel [o

JohnF .W ard Ward & Olivo 708 Third Avenne New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (212) 697-6262 Facsimile: (212) 972-5866 Edward Bakos Ward & Olivo 382 Springfield Avenue Summit, New Jersey 07901 Telephone: (908) 277.3333 Facsimile: (908) 277-6373 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

AMR CORPORATION, AMERICAN AIRLINES

INC, AMR EAGLE HOLDING CORP , AND

AMERICAN BAGLE AIRLINES, INC

243

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

IAP Intermodal LLC v. AMR Corporation et al, No. 2:04-cv-00099 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2005).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_04-cv-00099-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_04-cv-00099-0

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.