CCC Information Services is suing its rival, San Diego-based Mitchell International, alleging that the information technology provider has infringed on a patent CCC holds.
CCC, headquartered in Chicago, filed CCC Information Services Inc. vs. Mitchell International Inc. in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois' Eastern Division on April 22. At press time, no trial date had been set nor was there a timeframe available of when the trial may take place. Also at press time, Mitchell had been served with the complaint, but the company had not yet responded to it.
The suit contends that Mitchell violated CCCs Patent No. 5,950,169 by incorporating many of the functionalities protected under the patent into the Mitchell Ultramate Advanced Estimating system (Version 4.8), namely a "parts compare" feature. The patent includes coverage for different feature functionalities, including the parts compare technology. This technology is the subject of one or more claims of CCC's patent.The "System and Method for Managing Insurance Claim Processing" patent was filed in 1995 and issued in 1999. However, CCC began using the technology in November 1995 when it released its Pathways Estimating Solutions system. Mitchell released its Ultramate product that included the functionality in May 2002.
Robert Guttman, senior vice president of general counsel for CCC, says that although similar types of technologies exist, Mitchell has blatantly infringed on CCCs patent and is seeking a judicial determination stating this fact. Mitchell's Ultramate product includes functionality that permits users to process an insurance claim for a vehicle using a graphic user interface. This interface provides an estimate comparison screen that simultaneously displays replacement cost data for OEM parts, recycled parts and aftermarket parts as well as displays a repair cost.
According to the lawsuit, Mitchell's incorporation of a parts compare feature such as this into its Ultramate system violates CCC's patent. "A patent reflects a person's invention and intellectual property," Guttman says. "CCC is a technology company, and its ideas and intellectual property are the company's assets. The law affords protection for these assets, and we have an obligation to protect them."
Mitchell, however, finds the lawsuit preposterous. "We believe that this lawsuit has no basis," says Jim Linder, chairman and CEO of Mitchell in a press release about the lawsuit. He says in the release that Mitchell has been developing its own proprietary database analysis and presentation technology for more than 20 years, and of all the companies in the industry, "Micchell has the least interest in what CCC develops."
Linder asserts that Mitchell is the fastest-growing supplier of process automation technology to the insurance claims industry. For this reason, he says, "Unfortunately, it would seem that some companies would rather litigate than compete. But regardless, we will defend ourselves vigorously against the assertions made in this lawsuit."
Linder also noted that he "found it curious that the lawsuit was the first notice of [a patent infringement] claim by CCC to Mitchell." In response to this remark, Guttman says, "It's not our practice to comment on what they say about us." Guttman did not comment further, citing company policy against commenting on pending litigation. David A. Nelson, attorney with the Chicago-based law firm Latham & Watkins Illinois LLC, is representing CCC in the court proceedings.
[Sidebar]
Damages sought by CCC:
In addition to a judicial determination that Mitchell infringed on CCC's '169' Patent, CCC is seeking the following damages:
* Preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Mitchell from further infringing on the patent.
* Triple monetary damages for willful infringement
* Disgorgement of all profits resulting from the original infringement
* Attorneys' fees.
ABRN JULY 2003
[Author Affiliation]
By Tina Grady
Senior Associate Editor
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий