Midmark Corp. Sued for Patent Infringement Over GPS Technology

On Wednesday, Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC (SPIS) filed a complaint against Midmark Corporation for infringement of one of its patents, United States Patent No. 9,261,365 (‘365 Patent) which covers aspects of global position system (GPS) technology. The Southern District of Ohio filing seeks both damages and injunctive relief.

According to the complaint, SPIS is a Texas limited liability company with a “virtual office” located in Miami, Fla. Reportedly, Midmark is an Ohio corporation based in Versailles, Ohio. The plaintiff allegedly owns by assignment, the ‘365 Patent, titled, “Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device.”

SPIS claims that Midmark infringed the patent by “at least” testing, if not importing, selling, and/or offering for sale, a product that “provides a vehicle tracking system for real-time GPS tracking of medical assets.” The accused product enables a user to receive “medical asset” location information on a “positional information device,” such as a mobile device or computer.

The accused product purportedly works by sending “a request from a first positional information device (e.g., mobile device or desktop with software installed) to a server.” According to the complaint, “the request is for an address (location) of an asset having a second positional information device (e.g., tracking device).”

The request also includes an identifier request for the username and password associated with an account tied to the first positional information device. Prior to tracking device activation, a unique asset tracking device ID number is added to the first device user’s account, thus connecting the user to the asset they wish to track. Ultimately, the software provides the requesting device with the current location of the tracked asset.

The plaintiff requested a jury trial and sought, among other things, an order enjoining the defendant from further infringement and monetary damages.

The plaintiff is represented by Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA, and Kizzia Johnson, PLLC.