NAV-TV Says it Wins Patent Infringement Suit

share on:
NAV-TV logo

NAV-TV said it has won a lawsuit against Rich DeSclafani, who launched Car Integration Systems, a startup that sold car kits.

The company said it received final judgment for permanent injunctive relief in a patent infringement lawsuit against Car Integration Systems Corp and Rich DeSclafani.

Case number 14-CV-62390-PCH, filed in the US  District Court for the Southern District of Florida, ordered that judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff, NAV-TV Corp., and against defendants, Richard DeSclafani and Car Integration Systems Corp. as follows:

 

1 . Permanent Injunctive Relief.

 

Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, all parent and subsidiary corporations and affiliates, their assigns and successors in interest, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from:

 

  1. a) making, using, manufacturing or causing to be manufactured, importing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling or offering to sell goods which practice any claims of Plaintiff s United States Patent Nos. 7,917,261 (“the 261 Patent”) and 8,103,407 (“the 407 Patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”), including but not limited to UNi-VIM /CAM , and inducing others to participate in these ads in any manner;

 

  1. b) using the patents-in-suit in connection with the sale of any unauthorized goods;

 

  1. c) using the patents-in-suit in any manner which is calculated to suggest that products of Defendants offered for sale are being sponsored by, authorized by, endorsed by, or in any way associated with Plaintiff,

 

  1. d) falsely representing themselves as being connected with Plaintiff, through sponsorship or association;

 

  1. e) engaging in any act which is likely to falsely cause members of the trade and/or of the purchasing public to believe any goods or services of Defendants offered for sale are in any way endorsed by, approved by, and/or associated with Plaintiff;

 

  1. t) using the patents-in-suit in connection with the publicity, promotion, sale, or advertising of any goods sold by Defendants,

 

  1. g) Appropriating or using the patents-in-suit in connection with the sale of any goods by Defendants, as being those of Plaintiff or in any way endorsed by Plaintiff;

 

  1. h) otherwise unfairly competing with Plaintiff, and

 

  1. i) effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth above.

 

  1. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Judgment and Permanent Injunction.

 

  1. This Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. Any pending motions are

DENIED as moot.

 

All inquiries regarding this judgment, or for information on obtaining NAV-TV patent or trademark licensing, must be made in writing to NAV-TV Corp., 3950 NW120th Ave, Coral Springs, FL 33065 or by telephone at (866) 477-3336.

 

 

 

share on:

3 Comments

  1. Patent infringement is a illegal . A patented technology without license must be prosecuted. There is a lesson here that infringers will be taken to court to stop their illegal infringement. It’s not a question of if but when the hammer will drop. As business a business model infringers should beware before they face the hammer.

  2. actually, if you look closely at the case file, it appears that the point of this case is primarily
    over a non compete contract enforcement issue. the patent is used as a hammer,

Comments are closed.