DCT
1:18-cv-01360
I View Now LLC v. police Priority Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: I-VIEW NOW, LLC (Nevada)
- Defendant: police Priority, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01360, D. Nev., 10/05/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant transacts business and offers for sale infringing products in the district, derives revenue from such sales, and because Plaintiff’s principal place of business is in the district, where it has suffered harm.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud-based alarm verification software infringes a patent related to managing and distributing surveillance footage from disparate sources to remote viewers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for aggregating video from various security camera systems (e.g., DVRs), standardizing it, and providing remote access to emergency responders, aiming to improve alarm verification and response times.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Founder and CEO, Clayton Kemp, previously used Plaintiff’s patented technology through a 2012 agreement with his former company, Universal Monitoring, LLC. The complaint also states that Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter regarding the patent-in-suit on March 29, 2017.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-06-04 | '090 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011 | Plaintiff I-VIEW NOW, LLC formed |
| 2012 | Universal Monitoring (led by future Defendant CEO) contracts with Plaintiff |
| 2013-04-09 | U.S. Patent No. 8,417,090 Issued |
| 2016 | Police Priority (as LLC) formed |
| 2017-02 | Police Priority LLC dissolved |
| 2017-03-29 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2017-06 | Defendant announces integration with SureView System's software |
| 2017-10-05 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,417,090 - "System and Method for Management of Surveillance Devices and Surveillance Footage," issued April 9, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies challenges in managing surveillance systems that use a large number of different Digital Video Recorder (DVR) brands, each with its own proprietary viewing software (’090 Patent, col. 1:21-28). This fragmentation, combined with large video file sizes, creates delays in transmitting footage to law enforcement, who often respond to alarms "blind" without knowing what awaits them (’090 Patent, col. 1:35-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture centered around a server that communicates with a "multiplicity of different format DVRs" (’090 Patent, Fig. 1). This central server can receive surveillance video, convert it from various proprietary formats into a single, standardized format (e.g., Flash video), and then distribute it for viewing on multiple types of remote devices, including those used by emergency responders (’090 Patent, col. 3:44-59; col. 4:1-7). The conversion process can occur either at the central server or on the DVRs themselves to leverage their "excess computing power" and speed up transmission (’090 Patent, col. 4:17-23).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a universal translation layer for the fragmented security video industry, enabling faster, more informed emergency response by making crucial video evidence accessible without requiring proprietary software.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 23, and 24 (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method for providing surveillance video to responders, comprising the steps of:
- Providing a system with at least one remote viewer, a multiplicity of different format DVRs, a storage device, and at least one central server, all connected via a network.
- Capturing surveillance video from a surveillance area.
- Converting the video to a format suitable for display on different remote viewers and for network transport.
- Storing the converted video on the storage device.
- Providing access to the converted video to responders via the remote viewer.
- Independent Claim 23 recites a similar method, but refers to a "multiplicity of different format video appliances" instead of DVRs and specifies "providing wireless access" to the responders.
- Independent Claim 24 recites a method where the system includes at least two different format DVRs in a "mesh network," and the "mesh network" itself performs the video conversion and provides wireless access.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s “Cooperative Alarm Sharing Transmission (‘CAST’)” software product and technology (Compl. ¶12, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The CAST product is described as a "cloud-based software system" designed to integrate with a central monitoring station's operational software (Compl. ¶13). When a "CAST certified alarm is triggered," a central monitoring station dispatcher can view the associated video to verify a threat (Compl. ¶16). The system then generates an incident code that allows emergency responders to view "real-time video clips and location mapping" on any web-accessible device, such as those in patrol cars or on smartphones (Compl. ¶17). A screenshot in the complaint shows a dashboard allowing a dispatcher to review video from an alarm event. (Compl. ¶16, Fig. at ¶16). The complaint alleges the system is compatible with third-party platforms like SureView System's Immix Central Station software, suggesting its intent to operate across different monitoring environments (Compl. ¶20, 23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’090 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. providing a surveillance system, the system including at least one remote viewer... and a multiplicity of different format DVRs... and at least one central server... | Defendant provides the CAST system, a "cloud-based software system" that integrates with "central monitoring station platforms and alarm and surveillance systems" for remote viewing by "emergency responders." | ¶4, 6, 13, 15 | col. 5:6-15 |
| b. capturing surveillance video from a surveillance area; | The CAST system processes video captured "as a result of the alarm event" when "an incident occurs triggering a security alarm." | ¶3, 15, 16 | col. 5:4-5 |
| c. converting the surveillance video to a format suitable for display on a multiplicity of different remote viewers and for transport over a network media... | The complaint alleges CAST provides "video verification" and "video clips" to responders for viewing on "any web accessible device through incidentcode.com," implying the video is made suitable for general web viewing. | ¶2, 17, 18 | col. 7:4-7 |
| ...and storing it on the storage device; | The CAST system is a "cloud-based platform" that makes video available to responders, suggesting storage on a server. | ¶4, 13 | col. 5:18-20 |
| d. providing access to the converted surveillance video to the responders through the at least one remote viewer. | Responders input an incident code on incidentcode.com to view video clips on a dashboard. The complaint includes a screenshot showing this interface. | ¶17, 18 | col. 11:20-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires a "central server," while Claim 24 requires a "mesh network." A question for the court will be whether the accused "cloud-based" architecture (Compl. ¶4) meets the definition of a "central server" or a "mesh network" as described in the patent. The patent contemplates that a "mesh network" involves nearby DVRs assisting in video processing, a specific functionality not explicitly alleged in the complaint's description of the CAST system ('090 Patent, col. 4:23-33).
- Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the CAST system performs the claimed step of "converting the surveillance video to a format suitable for display." The complaint alleges video is provided for viewing on web devices (Compl. ¶17), but does not provide specific evidence that the CAST system ingests proprietary video formats and transcodes them into a standard web format as taught by the patent ('090 Patent, col. 4:54-59). The evidence needed to prove this element may depend on technical discovery into the CAST system's operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "central server" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for Claim 1 hinges on whether Defendant’s "cloud-based" system (Compl. ¶13) constitutes a "central server." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern cloud architectures are often distributed, which could be argued as distinct from a "central" server.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states that the "Server 1 can consist of a single server or multiple servers connected together," which may support construing the term to cover distributed or cloud-based systems ('090 Patent, col. 5:16-18).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent use of the singular "a central server" in the claim and the depiction of a single server box in Figure 1 could be argued to support a more traditional, non-distributed meaning ('090 Patent, Fig. 1).
The Term: "converting the surveillance video" (Claims 1, 23, 24)
Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement requires a change in the video's format. The dispute may turn on whether the CAST system merely passes through video streams or actively transcodes them from proprietary formats to a standard one.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires conversion to a format "suitable for display on a multiplicity of different remote viewers." This could be interpreted broadly to include any processing that makes the video viewable on standard web browsers, even if it is not a full transcoding of the source file.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly lists standard formats like ".flv, .mp4, .14v, .avi and .ogv" as the output of the conversion process, suggesting the term requires a specific technical transformation from a proprietary DVR format to a common, standardized file type ('090 Patent, col. 4:57-59).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides "hands-on-training to central monitoring stations and emergency responders" (Compl. ¶23) and instructs customers on how to use the CAST system, including for integration with third-party software (Compl. ¶23, 29). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the CAST software is a material part of the invention, is known to be especially adapted for infringement, and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge via a notice letter dated March 29, 2017 (Compl. ¶26). It further alleges that Defendant’s founder "used the knowledge gained from using I-View’s patented cloud-based software architecture to develop" the accused product, and that Defendant "willfully copied I-View's products" (Compl. ¶6, 28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on the following central questions:
- A core issue will be one of technical operation: Does the accused CAST system perform the specific step of "converting" video from proprietary surveillance formats into a standardized web format as claimed, or does it operate in a way that falls outside this claim limitation? The complaint’s allegations imply such a conversion, but direct evidence is not presented.
- A second issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "central server," as used in the patent, be construed to read on the accused "cloud-based" architecture? Similarly, can the cloud system be considered a "mesh network" as required by Claim 24, which the patent describes with specific inter-DVR functionality?
- Finally, a key question for damages and willfulness will be one of intent: Does the alleged prior business relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant’s CEO provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of willful copying, potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages if infringement is found?