Source: http://rameyfirm.com/representative-matters-new/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:35:54+00:00

Document:
Ramey & Schwaller attorneys have represented clients in the following cases and matters.
Kinetic Concepts Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, P.L.C., U.S. District Court (S.D. Texas). Medical device technology case involving alleged patent infringement, patent misuse, and antitrust issues.
Pension Advisory Group, Inc. et al. v. Christopher Scott Tyre, Curtis Horne and CAH Aircraft Sales, Inc. (13-DCV-205433, previously pending in the 400th Judicial District of Fort Bend County, Texas). Successfully represented Plaintiff purchaser of a Duke twine engine airplane in alleged breach of an Aircraft Sales Agreement concerning whether the plane was delivered in an air worthy condition. The matter was concluded by a confidential settlement.
VaporPoint, LLC v. Nanovapor Fuels Group, Inc. (S.D.TX. 4:11-cv-04639). The case concerns patent infringement by plaintiff over defendant’s US 7,727,310 patent and numerous common law claims, including theft of trade secrets. The plaintiff pleaded to change inventorship. The case is in a preliminary dispositive motion period on inventorship.
Pension Advisory Group, Inc., et al. v. Country Life Insurance Company (represented plaintiff) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex 2:10-cv-00278). The case concerned trade secret misappropriation, defamation, tortious interference breach of contract concerning intellectual property by an insurance company over its client, PAG. As a defense, defendant alleged inventorship of the patent application was incorrect and that its principal should be listed. The defendant settled the case on terms favorable to the plaintiffs and dropped the claim to inventorship. Technology: intellectual property around a pension disability insurance product and methods of doing business.
Grand River Capital, LLC v. Xemplar Energy Corporation, et al. (Tex. State Court, 205th Judicial District Court, Culberson County, Cause No. 5049). The case concerns breach of joint venture/contract related to a $9 million pecan orchard venture. Causes of action are pleaded for breach of contract, theft of trade secrets and fraud. We represent the plaintiff.
Pension Advisory Group, Inc. v. Fidelity Security Life, Inc., et al. (Tex. State Court, 343rd Judicial District Court, Aransas County, 12-0179-cv-C). The case concerns libel and slander per se by an insurance carrier and one of its agents related to forgery. We represent the plaintiff.
Wellogix v. BP America, Inc. (represented defendant)U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex). The case concerned trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference and breach of multiple contracts, all related to intellectual property concerning ERP software and related functionalities, specifically SAP R/3, SAP ECC(6.0), SAP EBP, SAP SRM 4.0 and 5.0, SAP SUS, SAP MDM, SAP BW, SAP XI, IBM Maximo in a purchase-to-pay environment, electronic procurement. We represented the defendant, BP America, Inc., After an arbitration hearing before the Honorable Judge Ellison, the case settled with the plaintiff taking nothing.
Wellogix v. BP America Inc., Accenture LLP, and SAP America, Inc. (represented plaintiff) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex); (represented defendant) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex); Trade secret misappropriation, conspiracy, tortious interference and breach of contract concerning intellectual property; technology: ERP software and related functionalities, specifically SAP R/3, SAP ECC(6.0), SAP EBP, SAP SRM 4.0 and 5.0, SAP SUS, SAP MDM, SAP BW, SAP XI, IBM Maximo in a purchase-to pay environment, electronic procurement (severed case from other defendants, removed to arbitration, dismissed enhanced damages claims).
Microsoft Corporation v. Ames Holding Corporation (represented defendant) U.S. District Court (E.D. Tex) Schneider; (Copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition dispute); Technology: software reseller (settled favorably for defendant client).
Pension Advisory Group, Inc. et al. v. Christopher Scott Tyre, Curtis Horne and CAH Aircraft Sales, Inc. (13-DCV-205433, previously pending in the 400th Judicial District of Fort Bend County, Texas). Successfully mediated the case of Plaintiff purchaser of a Duke twine engine airplane in alleged breach of an Aircraft Sales Agreement concerning whether the plane was delivered in an air worthy condition. The matter was concluded by a confidential settlement.
Spindletop Films, et al. v. Cesare Wright (represent plaintiff) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex 4:10 cv 04551) and 270th Judicial District Court 2010-23415. The case concerned copyright issues related to the ownership of certain tapes and breach of contract action. Radio personality Chris Baker is a managing member of Spindletop Films. We represented the plaintiff and the case is pending.
Wellogix v. BP America, Inc. (represented defendant) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex). The case concerned trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference and breach of multiple contracts, all related to intellectual property concerning ERP software and related functionalities, specifically SAP R/3, SAP ECC(6.0), SAP EBP, SAP SRM 4.0 and 5.0, SAP SUS, SAP MDM, SAP BW, SAP XI, IBM Maximo in a purchase-to pay environment, electronic procurement. We represented the defendant, BP America, Inc. After an arbitration hearing before the Honorable Judge Ellison, the case settled with the plaintiff taking nothing.
Wellogix v. BP America, Inc., Accenture LLP, and SAP America, Inc. (represented plaintiff) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex); (represented defendant) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex); Trade secret misappropriation, conspiracy, tortious interference and breach of contract concerning intellectual property; technology: ERP software and related functionalities, specifically SAP R/3, SAP ECC(6.0), SAP EBP, SAP SRM 4.0 and 5.0, SAP SUS, SAP MDM, SAP BW, SAP XI, IBM Maximo in a purchase-to-pay environment, electronic procurement (severed case from other defendants, removed to arbitration, dismissed enhanced damages claims).
Martinez v. Tim McGraw et al., 3:08-cv-0738, pending in the Middle District of Tennessee. Our firm represents the plaintiff in a copyright infringement action against Timothy McGraw for McGraw’s song Everywhere. Other defendants include the song writers, producers and publishing companies. Trial begins in June 2013.
Frank’s Casing Crew et al. v. PMR (represented 9 plaintiffs, who were also defendants, in a related patent infringement action). Motion to correct inventorship on PMR’s patent was asserted against the firm’s clients.) U.S. District Court (W.D. LA); Patent infringement/motion to correct inventorship; technology: oilwell logging (inventorship changed on patent, pre-Markman).
KI Ventures LLC v. Fry’s Electronics and CTA Digital (S.D. Tex. H-13-1407). Represent plaintiff against product manufacturer and retailer in a patent infringement action over US 6,569,019 (“the ‘019 patent’). The technology relates to game controllers.
James M. Taylor v. Microsoft Corp. (represented plaintiff) U.S. District Court (E.D. Tex); Schneider; Patent Infringement; Technology: Optimization Software (settled favorably for plaintiff client before Markman).
Foodie Partners v. Jamba Juice (represented plaintiff) U.S. District Court (E.D. Tex); Davis; Patent Infringement; Technology: Ice Beverage Preparation Apparatus (settled favorably for plaintiff client after Markman).
Reedhycalog UK, Ltd., Reedhycalog, LP, Grant Prideco v. Baker Hughes, et al. (worked on team representing defendant Ulterra DN Canadian); U.S. District Court (E.D. Tex); Davis; Patent Infringement; Technology: Diamond Drill Bits (settled favorably for client after Markman).
Merial Limited v. Intervet, Inc., Intervet International & Akzo Nobel NV (in-house counsel as defendant) U.S. District Court (N.D. GA); Patent infringement; technology: swine vaccines (settled).
Babcock & Wilcox v. Oiltech Services (represented defendant) U.S. District Court (C.D. CA); Patent Infringement; Technology: Gettered oil tubular for enhancing oil production (Finding of no infringement on motion for summary judgment, pre-Markman, case involved 2-year reexamination).
Frank’s Casing Crew, et al. v. PMR (represented 9 plaintiffs, who were also defendants, in a related patent infringement action). Motion to correct inventorship on PMR’s patent was asserted against the firm’s clients. U.S. District Court (W.D. LA); Patent Infringement/Motion to Correct Inventorship; technology: oil well logging (inventorship changed on patent, pre-Markman).
Workrite Ergonomic Accessories, Inc. v. International Source for Ergonomics, Inc. Represented ISE on allegations of patent infringement for an ergonomic keyboard (2000).
AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., U.S. District Court (D. Delaware). Integrated-circuit chip technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
EIT Holdings, LLC v. YELP!, Inc., U.S. District Court (N.D. California). Internet targeted-marketing technology involving alleged patent infringement.
Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. Sonic Innovations, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court (D. Delaware). Hearing-aid technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., et al., U.S. District Court (E.D. Texas). Calling-card technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
Logan v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd., et al., U.S. District Court (S.D. Texas). Spirally-sliced, boneless meat technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
Nextec Applications, Inc. v. Brookwood Companies, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court (S.D. New York). Advanced fabrics technology (in part used in military applications) case involving alleged patent infringement.
Juxtacomm Technologies, Inc. v. Ascential Software Corp. et al., U.S. District Court (E.D. Texas). Computer data-integration technology case involving alleged patent infringement.
Traxcell Technologies LLC v. AT&T, Inc., AT&T Corporation, and AT&T Mobility LLC (E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00718). Represent plaintiff against product manufacturer and retailer in a patent infringement action over US 8,977,284, US 9,510,320, US 9,642,024, US 9,549,388. The technology involved is for a wireless network, a tuning system in which mobile phones using the network are routinely located.
Traxcell Technologies LLC v. Sprint Communications Company, LP, Sprint Corporation, Sprint Spectrum, LP and Sprint Solutions, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00719). Represent plaintiff against product manufacturer and retailer in a patent infringement action over US 8,977,284, US 9,510,320, US 9,642,024, US 9,549,388. The technology involved is for a wireless network, a tuning system in which mobile phones using the network are routinely located.
Traxcell Technologies LLC v. T-MOBILE USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00720). Represent plaintiff against product manufacturer and retailer in a patent infringement action over US 8,977,284, US 9,510,320, US 9,642,024, US 9,549,388. The technology involved is for a wireless network, a tuning system in which mobile phones using the network are routinely located.
Traxcell Technologies LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. and Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LP (E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00721). Represent plaintiff against product manufacturer and retailer in a patent infringement action over US 8,977,284, US 9,510,320, US 9,642,024, US 9,549,388. The technology involved is for a wireless network, a tuning system in which mobile phones using the network are routinely located.
EMED Technologies Corporation v. Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (d/b/a RMS Medical Products) (E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00728). Represent plaintiff against product manufacturer and retailer in a patent infringement action over US 9,808,576 (the “’576 patent”). The technology involved is for devices and methods for protecting a user from a sharp tip of a medical needle.
Texas Children’s Hospital, Inc. v. U.T. Physician’s Group, LLC. (represent Petitioner) (Trademark cancellation procedure) (matter is currently pending In the Matter of Application Serial No. 85/431,881, Published in the Official Gazette on September 11, 2012; Opposition No. 91/207,428).
Sandvik Mining and Construction USA, LLC v. Wellbore Energy Solutions, LLC (represented respondent). Trademark cancellation procedure for mark DRILL TECH. Respondent’s mark was upheld.
Bee-Line Delivery Services v. Bee-Line Delivery (represented petitioner). This case involved a trademark cancellation procedure. The petitioner’s mark was upheld and the respondent’s mark was cancelled.
Pension Advisory Group, Inc., et al. v. Country Life Insurance Company (represented plaintiff) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex 2:10-cv-00278). The case concerned trade secret misappropriation, defamation, tortious interference and breach of contract concerning intellectual property by an insurance company over its client, PAG. As a defense, defendant alleged inventorship of the patent application was incorrect and that its principal should be listed. The defendant settled the case on terms favorable to the plaintiffs and dropped the claim to inventorship. Technology: intellectual property around a pension disability insurance product and methods of doing business.
Wellogix v. BP America, Inc., Accenture LLP, and SAP America, Inc. (represented plaintiff) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex); (represented defendant) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex); Trade secret misappropriation, conspiracy, tortious interference and breach of contract concerning intellectual property; Technology: ERP software and related functionalities, specifically SAP R/3, SAP ECC(6.0), SAP EBP, SAP SRM 4.0 and 5.0, SAP SUS, SAP MDM, SAP BW, SAP XI, IBM Maximo in a purchase-to pay environment, electronic procurement (severed case from other defendants, removed to arbitration, dismissed enhanced damages claims).
Suhm Spring v. Framatome (represented plaintiff) Harris County, Texas District Court; Trade secret misappropriation; Technology: leaf springs for nuclear reactors (settled favorably for plaintiff). Matter was removed to the USDC S.D. of Texas.
Nowacek v. Bank of America Corp., Texas District Court (57th District). Banking method technology case involving alleged trade secrets misappropriation.
Wellogix v. BP America, Inc., Accenture LLP, and SAP America, Inc. (represented plaintiff) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex); (represented defendant) U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex); Trade secret misappropriation, conspiracy, tortious interference and breach of contract concerning intellectual property; Technology: ERP software and related functionalities, specifically SAP R/3, SAP ECC(6.0), SAP EBP, SAP SRM 4.0 and 5.0, SAP SUS, SAP MDM, SAP BW, SAP XI, IBM Maximo in a Purchase-to Pay, electronic procurement Environment (severed case from other defendants, removed to arbitration, dismissed enhanced damages claims).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.