<x-flowed>I figured some of you might not already know about this and might find
it interesting.

Essentially, a small vendor, Avante[1] is suing Diebold Election
Systems, Inc., Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. and Election Systems and
Software[2] for infringing Avante's patents on a contemporaneous paper
record device (7,036,730) and optical scanning system (6,892,944).
They're seeking treble damages due to willful infringement and
delivery of all inventory that is found to be infringing (among other
things).

The complaint as well as first two exhibits are here:

<http://www.josephhall.org/tmp/avante_suit/avante_complaint.pdf>
<http://www.josephhall.org/tmp/avante_suit/avante_complaint_exhibit_a.pdf>
<http://www.josephhall.org/tmp/avante_suit/avante_complaint_exhibit_b.pdf>

[1] Small in the sense that they have one customer county in NJ (that
I know of).
[2] These three along with Hart InterCivic sell the lion's share of
DRE voting systems in the US.

Here's a story from late June on this suit... (subscription or trial
required to view entire article):

Diebold Faces Patent Suit In Voting Machine Spat
<http://ip.law360.com/Secure/ViewArticle.aspx?id=7252>

Portfolio Media, New York (June 28, 2006)--Diebold Election Systems is
facing a patent infringement battle with rival Avante International
Technology Corp. over voting machines that gained notoriety in the
last presidential campaign.

On Tuesday, Avante accused Diebold, along with industry competitors
Sequoia Voting Systems and Election Systems & Software, of violating
its patented voting machine methodology.

"Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S continue to conduct business in this
business and infringe, contribute to the infringement of and/or
actively induce others to infringe Avante's patents," charged the
complaint, filed in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of
Missouri.

At the heart of the dispute are two patents entitled "electronic
voting apparatus and method for optically scanned ballot" and
"electronic voting apparatus, system and method," respectively.

Both patents were issued to Kevin Chung, the chief executive officer
of Avante, with the first one granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office in May 2005 and the second in May 2006.

"Diebold has directly or indirectly infringed the '730 patent at a
minimum by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale at least
its AccuVote TS and/or AccuVote TSX [machines]," read the complaint.

The New Jersey-based company levied similar charges against Sequoia
and ES&S, taking the pair to task for such items as the AVC Edge and
iVotronic voting machines.

Avante contends that it first warned the trio that they were
potentially infringing back in April 2005, but the group never
responded to the accusations, according to court documents.

As a result, Avante is seeking treble damages against Diebold, Sequoia
and ES&S, charging that the infringement is both "willful and
deliberate."

In addition to damages, the company is also seeking injunctive relief
and has asked the court to allow all infringing equipment to be
destroyed or delivered directly to Avante.

[...]

Avante is represented in this matter by attorneys from SimmonsCooper LLC.

The case is Avante International Technology Corp. vs. Diebold Election
Systems et al., case number 4:06-cv-00978, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)