DCT
2:25-cv-02006
SOTAT LLC v. Tomofun LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SOTAT, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Tomofun, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SML AVVOCATI, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02006, C.D. Cal., 03/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant resides in the Central District of California and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Furbo" line of pet surveillance cameras and associated mobile application infringes patents related to mobile surveillance systems that use motion detection to trigger the capture and transmission of data to a user's device.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of network-connected remote monitoring systems, a market segment that includes smart home security and pet monitoring devices controlled via mobile applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patents-in-suit and the alleged infringement via an email letter on February 26, 2025, which Defendant acknowledged receiving. This event forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-31 | Priority Date for '207 and '809 Patents |
| 2017-12-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,854,207 Issued |
| 2019-12-17 | U.S. Patent No. 10,511,809 Issued |
| 2025-02-26 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2025-03-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,854,207 - "Mobile Surveillance System" (Issued Dec. 26, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art surveillance systems as suffering from several drawbacks, including inefficient use of system resources, data storage limitations, false alarms, and delays in notifying users of an intrusion ('207 Patent, col. 1:24-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a mobile surveillance system where a camera in a surveillance area communicates with a user's mobile device via a server. Crucially, the system uses a motion detection mechanism to trigger the transfer of surveillance data. This event-based approach aims to conserve storage and bandwidth by avoiding continuous recording and to provide more timely, relevant alerts to the user ('207 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-14).
- Technical Importance: The technology sought to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of remote surveillance by shifting from a continuous monitoring model to one that intelligently transmits data only upon the detection of a potentially significant event ('207 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶39, ¶47).
- The essential elements of independent claim 19, a system claim, include:
- A mobile device configured to communicate with at least one camera positioned at a surveillance area.
- The mobile device is configured to control activation of the system, as well as the start, stop, and transfer of surveillance data.
- Surveillance data is wirelessly communicated directly from a transmitter linked to the camera to the mobile device.
- The mobile device is configured to "activate" upon the detection of motion at the surveillance area when motion measurements exceed a determined threshold.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶59).
U.S. Patent No. 10,511,809 - "Mobile Surveillance System" (Issued Dec. 17, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the '809 Patent addresses the shortcomings of conventional surveillance, such as limited user control over camera operations and data transmissions and the lack of a user-friendly interface for scheduling system activity (Compl. ¶12-13; '809 Patent, col. 6:12-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for conducting surveillance where a mobile device controls the capture of data, which is then transferred to the device upon motion detection. A specific feature highlighted is a "datebook" on the mobile device that allows a user to schedule when the system will transfer surveillance data, synchronizing it with a device application ('809 Patent, col. 10:11-19).
- Technical Importance: This patent builds on the motion-triggered concept by adding a claimed user-facing scheduling component, providing a more customizable and automated level of control over the surveillance system's operation (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶41, ¶48).
- The essential elements of independent claim 10, a method claim, include:
- Receiving an instruction from a mobile device to control the start and stop of surveillance data capture.
- Capturing data with a camera that is operably engaged with a motion detection mechanism.
- Transferring the surveillance data to the mobile device when the motion detection mechanism measures motion exceeding a predetermined threshold.
- The mobile device displaying a "datebook" with days and times that can be synchronized with an application to schedule the data transfer.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶70).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "Furbo" branded devices, including the "Furbo 360° Dog Camera, 360° Cat Camera, and Furbo Mini," along with the associated "Furbo App" mobile application (Compl. ¶25, ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as network-connected pet surveillance systems that include a camera and motion detection capabilities (Compl. ¶25). The system allegedly operates by having the Furbo device capture surveillance data, with a motion detection mechanism detecting variations in motion (Compl. ¶28). Upon detection of motion exceeding a threshold, surveillance data is communicated from the device, through a server, to the user's mobile device running the Furbo App (Compl. ¶32, ¶34). The complaint alleges that end users can use the app to control the system, including activating the device and scheduling the recording and transfer of data using a "datebook" feature (Compl. ¶33, ¶35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'207 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mobile device configured to communicate with at least one camera positioned at a surveillance area... | The Furbo App, installed on a user's mobile device, communicates with the Furbo camera device. | ¶25, ¶33 | col. 11:35-40 |
| the mobile device is configured to control activation of the mobile surveillance system, and control start and stop of the capture of the surveillance data, and transfer of the surveillance data... | End users utilize the mobile application to activate the Furbo product, control the capture of surveillance data, and control the transfer of that data. | ¶33 | col. 11:35-44 |
| the surveillance data is wirelessly communicated directly from a transmitter linked to the camera to the mobile device... | A transmitter in the Furbo product wirelessly communicates surveillance data to the end user's mobile device via a server. | ¶32, ¶34 | col. 12:15-18 |
| the mobile device is further configured to activate upon detection of motion at the surveillance area... | The end user's mobile device "activate[s] upon receipt of the surveillance data" and "emits or displays a notification, video, audio, or haptic feedback." | ¶34 | col. 12:8-12 |
| wherein... mobile device activates when the motion measurements exceeds a determined threshold. | This activation occurs "Upon detection, by the motion detection mechanism, of a motion detection measurement that exceeds a threshold." | ¶34 | col. 12:25-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 19 requires that data be "wirelessly communicated directly from a transmitter... to the mobile device." The complaint alleges the communication occurs "via a server" (Compl. ¶32). A potential dispute is whether a communication path that includes a server intermediary meets the "directly" limitation, which will be a matter for claim construction.
'809 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving an instruction from a mobile device to control start and stop of capture of surveillance data at a surveillance area; | End users use the Defendant's mobile application to start and stop the capture of surveillance data. | ¶33 | col. 10:11-13 |
| capturing the surveillance data by a camera at the surveillance area, wherein the camera is operably engaged to a motion detection mechanism for detecting variations in motion... | The Furbo product includes a camera operably engaged to a motion detection mechanism. | ¶28 | col. 10:14-17 |
| transferring said surveillance data to the mobile device when the motion detection mechanism obtains a motion detection measurement that exceeds a predetermined threshold... | Upon detection of motion exceeding a threshold, surveillance data is communicated from the Furbo product to the user's mobile device. | ¶34 | col. 10:18-22 |
| wherein the mobile device displays a datebook comprising days of the week and times of day that can be synchronized with an application... to schedule the transferring... | End users use the mobile app to schedule recording and transfer "using a datebook that includes days of the week and times of day." | ¶35 | col. 10:23-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the term "datebook". Practitioners may focus on whether the scheduling feature in the accused Furbo App functions as a "datebook" as contemplated by the patent. The question will be whether any scheduling interface meets this limitation or if it requires a more specific calendar-like graphical user interface, as potentially suggested by the specification's description ('809 Patent, col. 6:12-16).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "datebook" ('809 Patent, Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This term is the most specific and potentially distinguishing feature of asserted claim 10. The infringement case for the '809 patent may succeed or fail based on whether the accused app's scheduling function falls within the construed scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity presents a clear potential line of non-infringement argument for the defendant.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires a "datebook comprising days of the week and times of day that can be synchronized... to schedule" data transfer ('809 Patent, col. 10:23-28). A party might argue that any user interface that allows the selection of days and times to schedule an event functionally meets this description, regardless of its visual layout.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the datebook as one that "depicts a month of dates associated with a time of day and/or event" ('809 Patent, col. 6:14-16). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a traditional calendar-like graphical interface that "depicts a month," rather than a simple list or other scheduling mechanism.
The Term: "activate upon detection of motion" ('207 Patent, Claim 19)
- Context and Importance: This term defines what the mobile device itself must do in response to a motion alert. The interpretation is critical to determine whether a standard push notification suffices or if a more integral application function is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the system as one that can "automatically update a user by sending the user a short message service message" ('207 Patent, col. 2:37-41). This could support a reading where receiving any form of notification, including a simple SMS or push alert, constitutes "activation."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses synchronizing "the displaying of audio, video and image data" on the mobile device ('207 Patent, col. 4:65-67) and delivering "real time surveillance data" ('207 Patent, col. 5:1-2). This may suggest that "activation" requires the mobile device to perform a more active function, such as launching a media player or a live feed within the application, rather than passively displaying a notification.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement theory is based on Defendant's alleged instructions through user manuals, websites, and videos that direct users to set up and operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶38, ¶64, ¶75). The contributory infringement theory asserts that the Furbo products and app are material components especially made for use in an infringing system and are not suitable for substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶44, ¶65, ¶76).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter on February 26, 2025, identifying the patents and the accused products, and that Defendant’s alleged infringement continued unchanged after acknowledging receipt of this notice (Compl. ¶53-57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "datebook", as described in the '809 patent specification, be construed to cover the scheduling feature allegedly present in the accused Furbo application? The outcome of this construction will likely determine the viability of the infringement claim for that patent.
- A key technical question will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused system's alleged use of a server to relay information from the camera to the mobile device satisfy the '207 patent's requirement that data be communicated "directly" from a transmitter to the mobile device? This raises a classic claim construction question about the scope of patent language in the face of evolving network architectures.
- A central evidentiary question will concern willfulness: given the allegation of a specific pre-suit notice letter, the court will likely examine the factual record of Defendant’s actions after this date. The dispute will focus on whether Defendant's continued conduct constituted an objectively high and known risk of infringement, which could expose it to enhanced damages.