DCT

1:17-cv-11922

Avigilon Corp v. Canon Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-11922, D. Mass., 10/05/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Avigilon alleges that venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts because it maintains a place of business in Somerville, MA, with at least 20 employees who work on the technology at issue.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its video surveillance products do not infringe five of Defendant's patents related to network-based camera control, user interfaces, and image display systems, and further seeks a declaration that the patents are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns networked video surveillance systems, which allow operators to monitor and control numerous cameras from a central or remote location, a key technology in the security and asset protection industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action arises from a prior lawsuit filed by Canon against Avigilon in the Eastern District of New York, asserting infringement of the same five patents. Canon voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice after Avigilon stated its intention to file a motion to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts. This prior litigation is cited as the basis for the "actual controversy" between the parties, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for a declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-02-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,321,453 Priority Date
1995-12-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,580,451 Priority Date
1996-01-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,911,999 Priority Date
2000-05-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,034,864 Priority Date
2003-06-17 U.S. Patent No. 6,580,451 Issued
2005-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,911,999 Issued
2006-04-25 U.S. Patent No. 7,034,864 Issued
2006-12-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,191,630 Priority Date
2008-01-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,321,453 Issued
2015-11-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,191,630 Issued
2017-07-06 Canon files initial infringement suit in E.D.N.Y.
2017-10-03 Avigilon indicates intent to transfer prior suit
2017-10-05 Canon voluntarily dismisses E.D.N.Y. suit
2017-10-05 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,580,451 - Communication Apparatus, Image Processing Apparatus, Communication Method, and Image Processing Method

  • Issued: June 17, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional remote monitoring systems as having fixed display positions for video camera images, which limits an operator's ability to freely rearrange video feeds for easier management and viewing (U.S. Patent No. 6,580,451, col. 2:50-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a graphical user interface (GUI) that displays a map with symbols, or icons, representing the locations of various network cameras. An operator can select a camera by performing a "drag and drop" operation on its corresponding symbol, moving it from the map to a video display area. This action initiates a network connection and displays the live video from the selected camera in that area (’451 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:36-47). This process is illustrated in Figure 6 of the patent.
  • Technical Importance: This GUI-based method provided a more intuitive way for operators to manage and connect to numerous remote cameras in a surveillance network compared to hardware-dependent systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 21).
  • Claim 1 requires, in essence:
    • Means for supplying a video signal to display a map window.
    • Means for displaying a symbol on the map indicating the location of an image source (e.g., a camera).
    • Control means for displaying an image from that source in response to a "drag and drop" of the symbol on the map.

U.S. Patent No. 6,911,999 - Camera Control System

  • Issued: June 28, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In a system with multiple networked cameras, a remote operator may not know if a selected camera is actually controllable (e.g., has pan, tilt, or zoom capabilities), potentially leading to user confusion or attempts to perform impossible operations (’999 Patent, col. 1:33-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented system provides for a user's terminal (an "image reception terminal") to query a remote camera's terminal to determine if it is controllable. Based on the response, the system "changes a display state of the camera operation interface" to visually inform the user of the camera's status ('999 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-9). For example, control buttons may be "grayed out" if the camera is not controllable ('999 Patent, Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This invention improves the user experience in complex surveillance systems by providing immediate, intuitive visual feedback on the capabilities of each networked camera.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 27).
  • Claim 1 requires, in essence:
    • An image reception terminal with a determination device to receive information about whether a selected camera is controllable.
    • A display controller that displays a camera operation interface and changes its "display state" based on the controllability information.
    • An image transmission terminal (with the camera) that transmits this controllability information.

U.S. Patent No. 7,034,864 - Image Display Apparatus, Image Display System, and Image Display Method

  • Issued: April 25, 2006
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the difficulty end-users face in modifying video monitoring layouts. The invention describes a system where management data (e.g., camera names, locations) is stored in a data description language (like XML) and the display format is stored in a style designation language (like XSL), allowing for more flexible and user-modifiable display configurations without requiring expert programming (’864 Patent, col. 1:39-51).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 33).
  • Accused Features: The configurable display layouts of the Avigilon Products (Compl. ¶ 1, 14, 32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,321,453 - Image Input System

  • Issued: January 22, 2008
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology addresses privacy concerns in remote surveillance. The system allows an operator to designate an "imaging inhibited area" on a map-based interface, and the system then calculates and enforces limits on camera movement to prevent it from being aimed into that restricted zone (’453 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 39).
  • Accused Features: The camera control functionalities within the Avigilon Products (Compl. ¶ 1, 14, 38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,191,630 - Dynamic Layouts

  • Issued: November 17, 2015
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for dynamically displaying video data. The system generates queries based on metadata (e.g., camera location, motion detection status) and automatically displays video from sources that match the query, allowing layouts to update in real-time based on changing conditions (’630 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 15 (Compl. ¶ 45).
  • Accused Features: The video analytics and dynamic display capabilities of the Avigilon Products (Compl. ¶ 1, 14, 44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies a range of "Avigilon Products," including the Avigilon Control Center software, web interface, various HD camera models (Pro, Bullet, Dome, Fisheye, etc.), NVRs, and monitoring stations (Compl. ¶ 1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes these products collectively as a suite of "video analytics, network video management software and hardware, surveillance cameras, and access control solutions" (Compl. ¶ 14). These components form integrated systems for security monitoring and video management across various industries (Compl. ¶ 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a request for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not set forth a detailed infringement theory. It states that Defendant Canon previously alleged infringement in a prior case (Compl. ¶ 20, 26, 32, 38, 44), but does not provide Canon's specific allegations, claim charts, or evidence of infringement against which a technical analysis can be performed. The complaint makes only conclusory denials of infringement (Compl. ¶ 21, 27, 33, 39, 45). Consequently, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided document.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’451 Patent

  • The Term: "drag and drop of the symbol"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central user action that triggers the display of a video feed according to claim 1. The scope of this term will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the mechanism by which the patented function is invoked.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be construed broadly to cover any user action that logically transfers a camera representation to a display area, as the specification focuses on the functional result of establishing a connection rather than a specific GUI implementation (e.g., ’451 Patent, col. 6:36-47).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for a narrower construction limited to the specific mouse-based GUI interactions shown in the patent's figures, such as the cursor changing shape during the drag operation, as depicted in Figure 7 of the patent ('451 Patent, col. 6:47-50).

For the ’999 Patent

  • The Term: "changes a display state of the camera operation interface"
  • Context and Importance: This term describes the core feedback mechanism of the invention in claim 1. The dispute may turn on what constitutes a legally significant "change" in the "display state" to meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples show functional changes (e.g., graying out buttons), raising the question of whether purely informational changes would suffice.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general, suggesting that any visual modification on the interface that informs the user about controllability could qualify as a change in "display state" ('999 Patent, col. 2:3-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiments describe specific changes that alter the appearance of operability, such as changing button colors to gray or removing them entirely ('999 Patent, col. 8:5-9; Fig. 10). A party could argue the term should be limited to such functional indications of inoperability, not merely informational text or symbols.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that in the prior E.D.N.Y. case, Canon alleged both direct and indirect infringement (Compl. ¶ 20, 26, 32, 38, 44). Avigilon’s complaint seeks a declaration that it does not "actively induce infringement" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶ 22, 28, 34, 40, 46). The complaint does not provide the factual basis for Canon's prior inducement allegations.

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

  • A threshold procedural issue may be one of jurisdiction: given that Canon voluntarily dismissed the prior litigation, the court may first need to determine whether an "immediate, real and justiciable controversy" (Compl. ¶ 20) continues to exist to support this declaratory judgment action, or whether Canon’s dismissal rendered the dispute moot at the time of filing.
  • A core technical issue for the ’451 Patent will be one of definitional scope: can the term "drag and drop," rooted in the patent's depiction of a mouse-and-icon GUI, be construed to cover the range of user interactions available in the accused modern video management software?
  • A key claim construction question for the ’999 Patent will be one of functional requirement: does the claim term "changes a display state" require a specific functional alteration to the interface, such as graying out controls as shown in the patent's embodiments, or can it be met by any visual cue that informs the user of a camera's controllability status?