DCT

1:22-cv-01254

SecureNet Solutions Group LLC v. Arrow Electronics Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01254, D. Colo., 05/19/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant has its principal place of business in that district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Internet of Things (IoT) solutions and related services infringe three patents related to systems for correlating sensory and legacy system data for security, safety, and business productivity applications.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves smart surveillance and IoT systems that ingest, normalize, and analyze data from disparate sources (e.g., cameras, sensors, access control systems) to identify significant events and generate intelligent alerts.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents are from the same family and that during their prosecution, the applicant addressed patent eligibility under the Supreme Court's Alice framework, arguing that the claims represent "inventive concepts" over prior art.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-10-04 Earliest Priority Date for ’616, ’744, and ’314 Patents
2015-11-04 Applicant interview with USPTO Examiner regarding Alice eligibility for ’616 patent family
2016-05-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,344,616 Issues
2020-12-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,862,744 Issues
2022-05-03 U.S. Patent No. 11,323,314 Issues
2022-05-19 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,344,616 - “Correlation engine for security, safety, and business productivity”

Issued May 17, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenges of traditional security systems, which generate large volumes of uncoordinated data from various sensors, leading to difficulties in large-scale analysis, false positives, and the inability to connect related events occurring across different times and locations (Compl. ¶¶7-8; ’744 Patent, col. 2:5-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a computerized system centered on a "correlation engine" that ingests data from multiple sources, normalizes it into a standard format, and correlates events across time and space to identify more significant "compound" or "correlated" events (Compl. ¶¶8-9, 11; ’744 Patent, Fig. 1). A key aspect is the use of "attribute data"—such as a sensor's quality, age, or maintenance history—to weight the importance of detected events, thereby reducing errors and false alarms (Compl. ¶8; ’744 Patent, col. 7:43-54).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to convert siloed, raw sensor data streams into a coherent and actionable intelligence picture for security personnel and business analysts (Compl. ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 46 (Compl. ¶53).
  • The essential elements of Claim 46, which is directed to a non-transitory storage medium, include computer-executable steps for:
    • Receiving sensory data from sensors and corresponding IP data (including IP address and network status).
    • Processing the sensory data to detect "primitive sensory events."
    • Normalizing these events into a standardized format.
    • Storing the normalized events in a database.
    • Retrieving historical normalized events from the database.
    • Evaluating historical correlations by analyzing primitive sensory events across time and space.
    • Monitoring in real-time for "critical events" based on the historical correlations.
    • Monitoring in real-time for "network failure events" based on the IP data.
    • Sending alerts based on critical events or network failure events.
    • Generating new rules based on the correlated events and generated alerts.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,862,744 - “Correlation system for correlating sensory events and legacy system events”

Issued December 8, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to integrate data not only from modern sensors (like cameras) but also from pre-existing "legacy" systems (like card access or personnel databases) to create a more complete security picture and reduce false alarms (’744 Patent, col. 2:5-34, col. 8:56-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a monitoring system with distinct software modules for processing different data types: a "sensory event analytics module" handles sensor data, while a "legacy event analytics module" handles data from legacy systems (’744 Patent, col. 3:1-17). Both types of events are stored in a database and analyzed by a correlation module, which identifies critical events by analyzing historical correlations across time and space (’744 Patent, col. 3:5-17). This architecture enables the creation of "compound events," such as correlating a person detected on video with a corresponding access card swipe to determine if the entry is authorized (’744 Patent, col. 12:27-43).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a specific framework for combining real-time sensor data with contextual data from existing enterprise systems to produce more sophisticated and reliable security insights (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶82).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1, which is directed to a monitoring system, include:
    • A sensory event analytics module to receive and process sensory data to detect events like a person, face, vehicle, or license plate.
    • A legacy event analytics module to receive and process data from legacy systems (e.g., access control, personnel, law enforcement) to detect legacy events.
    • An event queue and database to store both sensory and legacy events.
    • A correlation module to calculate historical correlations by analyzing the stored sensory and legacy events across time and space, and to monitor for critical events in real-time based on those correlations.
    • An alerting module to send alerts based on the identified critical events.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,323,314 - “Heirarchical data storage and correlation system for correlating and storing sensory events in a security and safety system”

Issued May 3, 2022

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the technical challenge of efficiently storing the massive data volumes generated by modern surveillance systems (’314 Patent, col. 15:8-22). It discloses a "hierarchical storage manager" that automatically moves or "cascades" data between different tiers of storage (e.g., fast, expensive disk to slower, cheaper tape) based on the data's calculated "importance," which can be derived from factors such as whether the data contains a detected security event (’314 Patent, col. 16:25-29, 61-65).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 13 (dependent on Claim 1) (Compl. ¶109).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Nvidia-Herta-Arrow System, alleging that its use of NVIDIA's Deepstream SDK for "smart video recording" on edge devices and transmission to the cloud for higher-level analytics constitutes an infringing hierarchical storage system (Compl. ¶¶116-117, 120).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies three overlapping groups of products and services collectively termed the "Accused Instrumentality" (Compl. p. 1). These are end-to-end Internet of Things (IoT) solutions marketed and sold by Defendant Arrow, incorporating hardware and software from partners including Hitachi Vantara, Gorilla, Intel, Infineon, Nvidia, and Herta (Compl. ¶1, 53, 82, 109). A diagram in the complaint depicts these integrated offerings as spanning from sensors and hardware to connectivity, analytics, and cloud services (Compl. ¶47, p. 23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality provides customers with integrated systems to "converge data from silos," analyze it using AI and analytics, and "create a centralized and insightful view" of operations (Compl. ¶47). Specific functionalities alleged include:

  • Real-time data aggregation and video analytics from various sensors, including cameras (Compl. ¶59).
  • Collection of sensor data via edge gateways and processing at the edge or in the cloud (Compl. ¶62, 116).
  • Detection of specific events such as faces, people, vehicles, and license plates (Compl. ¶87). A marketing image for the Gorilla system shows capabilities for face recognition, people counting, and intrusion detection (Compl. ¶87, p. 45).
  • Integration with legacy enterprise systems, such as Point of Sale (POS) and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) databases, and access control systems (Compl. ¶¶90-92).
  • Storage of event data in databases for post-event analysis and retrieval (Compl. ¶97). A screenshot of Gorilla's EVMS system shows an "Alarm Log" and "Post-Event Search Analysis" interface (Compl. ¶97, p. 51).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’944,616 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 46) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving sensory data about a physical environment from one or more sensors The Hitachi-Arrow Lumada platform is capable of receiving sensory data from sensors in the real world (physical spaces) to create cyber-physical systems. ¶60 col. 10:43-45
receiving IP data of the one or more sensors, wherein the IP data comprises at least an Internet Protocol (IP) address and a network status of at least one of the sensors The Hitachi Video Intelligence System can be configured to receive the IP data of a sensor and its network status, as shown in a management interface screenshot. ¶64 col. 3:1-4
processing the sensory data from the one or more sensors to detect one or more primitive sensory events Hitachi Video Analytics processes sensor data to detect primitive events, such as those shown in an infographic including "People Counter," "Intrusion Detector," and "Object Detector." ¶65 col. 7:62-65
normalizing the primitive sensory events into a standardized data format The Lumada streaming platform takes data from disparate sources and performs transformations, such as transforming legacy healthcare data into the HL7 standard. ¶67 col. 10:45-48
storing the normalized sensory events in an event database for later retrieval Hitachi's Video Management Platform includes a Virtual Storage Platform that provides storage options for later retrieval of sensory events. ¶68 col. 11:2-5
retrieving one or more historical normalized sensory events from the event database The Accused Hitachi Instrumentality retrieves historical sensory events from its event database for correlation analysis. ¶69 col. 11:5-7
evaluating one or more historical correlations by automatically analyzing said primitive sensory events, across at least one of time and space... The Hitachi methodology allegedly uses a "multi-variable spatiotemporal model" to ingest multiple datasets (e.g., police locations, social media) to find correlations to crime. ¶¶70-71 col. 12:44-56
monitoring continuously and in real-time the primitive sensory events...to identify one or more critical events Lumada Edge Intelligence permits real-time analytics on streaming data to predict critical events, such as equipment failure, based on prior correlations of sensor events. ¶73 col. 12:44-49
sending one or more alerts based on at least one of said critical events and said network failure events The system is capable of sending alerts based on critical events, such as suggesting maintenance to an operator before a predicted system failure occurs. ¶76 col. 12:66-13:1
generating one or more new rules based on primitive events correlated and alerts generated The system allegedly uses machine learning algorithms in real time to modify its rules. ¶77 col. 13:1-3

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the general-purpose data transformation capabilities of the accused platform (e.g., converting healthcare data to the HL7 standard) meet the claim limitation of "normalizing the primitive sensory events" within the patent's security and surveillance context.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused system uses machine learning to "modif[y] the rules in real-time." A point of contention may be whether this functionality satisfies the more specific claim requirement of "generating one or more new rules based on primitive events correlated and alerts generated."

’10,862,744 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a sensory event analytics module to receive sensory data...to detect one or more sensory events, wherein the one or more sensory events is selected from the group consisting of a person detected, a face detected, a vehicle detected, and a license plate detected The Gorilla-Intel-Arrow system's AI Video Analytics software receives sensory data from IP cameras to perform facial, vehicle, and license plate detection. ¶¶87-88 col. 3:1-8
a legacy event analytics module to receive legacy system data from one or more legacy systems...to detect one or more legacy events... The Gorilla IVAR system has integration capabilities with legacy systems like Video Management Systems (VMS) and System Access Control. ¶¶90, 93 col. 3:8-14
an event queue having access to an event database to store the sensory events and the legacy events for later retrieval... The Gorilla IVAR system uses dashboards to capture and store data from multiple points, including sensory events from cameras and events from legacy systems like POS and CRM. ¶95 col. 3:14-17
a correlation module to calculate one or more historical correlations by automatically analyzing the stored sensory events and the stored legacy events across at least one of time and space...to identify one or more critical events... The Gorilla IVAR and EVMS products merge video analytics with a VMS, storing event attributes in a "temporal-spatial big data database" to perform correlations and deliver insights. ¶¶99-100 col. 3:5-12
an alerting module to send one or more alerts based on the one or more critical events The accused system provides "Exception alerts based on key business or security parameters" and "Time-Spatial GIS Event Alerting." ¶¶103-104 col. 3:12-14

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: Does the accused system's integration with commercial legacy systems like POS and CRM for retail analytics meet the limitations of a "legacy event analytics module" as recited in a claim that lists security- and facility-oriented systems (access control, law enforcement, lighting)?
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused "correlation module" actually analyzes both sensory events and legacy events together in a single analytical process to identify critical events, as opposed to analyzing them in separate, siloed processes?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "correlation module to calculate one or more historical correlations...across at least one of time and space" (’744 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines the core technical function of the invention. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the general data analytics performed by the accused commercial IoT and retail platforms is found to be the specific type of spatio-temporal correlation of security and legacy events disclosed in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint applies the patent, which was conceived for police IT systems (Compl. ¶7), to broader commercial products.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the correlation engine's function broadly as connecting "crime-related events to specific sensor data, other legacy system data, 911 calls, anonymous tips, and video records" (’744 Patent, col. 8:56-61), which could support an interpretation covering any system that combines different data types to find relationships.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples of correlation, such as identifying "multiple tailgating events in different parts of a facility, or the loitering of two different vehicles in different parts of a campus" over time (’744 Patent, col. 12:50-52). A defendant may argue this language limits the term to the specific security scenarios described.

The Term: "attribute data" (’744 Patent, used throughout specification, relevant to dependent claim 13 of the '314 patent)

Context and Importance

This term is central to the patents' alleged improvement over the prior art—weighting events to improve accuracy. The infringement analysis for the '314 patent will hinge on whether the data points used by the accused systems (e.g., neural network weights, sensor metadata) constitute "attribute data."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term to include "probabilistic weights attached to data generated by the sensory devices" (’744 Patent, col. 7:55-57). The complaint's allegation that an accused system uses "YOLO weights" could support a broad definition (Compl. ¶133).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent lists specific examples of attribute data, such as "quality of the data," "age of the sensory device," "time since the sensory device was last maintained," and "reliability of the sensory device" (’744 Patent, col. 7:45-51). An accused infringer might argue the term is limited to these explicit metrics of sensor quality and status, not general-purpose metadata or AI model weights.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant indirectly infringes by offering for sale and providing technical support and repair services for the Accused Instrumentality (Compl. ¶¶52, 81, 108). It also alleges inducement through programs like the "Arrow Transcend Program for Hitachi Vantara Partners," which allegedly provides tools and resources that encourage partners to develop and sell infringing systems (Compl. ¶54).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional and technological scope: can claim terms rooted in the patents' context of security and surveillance (e.g., "correlation," "legacy system," "critical events") be construed to read on the general-purpose data analytics, commercial system integrations, and machine learning functionalities of the accused industrial and retail IoT platforms?
  • A central legal question, foreshadowed by the complaint's own arguments, will be patent eligibility: are the claims directed to the abstract idea of collecting, correlating, and analyzing data, and if so, does the claimed combination of elements—such as weighting events by sensor "attribute data" and integrating legacy system information—represent a sufficient "inventive concept" to be patent-eligible under Alice?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what evidence will demonstrate that the accused systems perform the specific, multi-step processes as claimed—for example, that a single "correlation module" analyzes both sensory and legacy events together across time and space to identify a "critical event," which in turn triggers an alert, as opposed to performing these functions in distinct, unintegrated software processes?