Hawk Technology Systems LLC v. Lowe's Companies Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case Name: Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.
• Plaintiff’s Counsel: Henderson Dantone, P.A.
• Case Identification: 4:18-cv-00126, N.D. Miss., 06/14/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's business operations within the district, including a retail store in Washington County, Mississippi.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-store video monitoring systems infringe a patent related to the simultaneous display and storage of multiple video images using a personal computer-based system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns PC-based digital video surveillance systems that can manage multiple camera feeds, a foundational technology for modern security and monitoring applications.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,625,410. The complaint notes that the patent expired on April 29, 2014, and states that Plaintiff seeks damages only for the period not barred by the statute of limitations.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,462, "Video Monitoring and Conferencing System," issued June 12, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art video surveillance systems as limited. Systems that switch between camera feeds risk missing events, while "split screen" systems record the entire composite display rather than individual feeds, limiting resolution and flexibility (’462 Patent, col. 1:26-36). Furthermore, analog systems were noted to be susceptible to signal noise and had limited recording capacity on media like VCRs (’462 Patent, col. 2:36-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a PC-based system that receives video from multiple sources, digitizes it, and allows it to be simultaneously displayed in separate windows and stored digitally (’462 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is the ability to use a "first set of temporal and spatial parameters" (e.g., frame rate, image size) for live display and a separate "second set" of parameters for storage, providing flexibility in managing data and recording quality (’462 Patent, col. 11:62 - col. 12:10). This uncoupling of display and storage formats allows for optimized, long-term digital recording independent of what an operator is viewing in real-time.
• Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from analog, sequential, or composite-view surveillance to a more flexible, digital, multi-stream paradigm where display and storage are independently configurable.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 12 and reserves the right to assert its dependent claims (Compl. ¶1, 25).
• Independent Claim 12 (Method):
  • receiving video images at a personal computer based system from one or more sources;
  • digitizing any of the images not already in digital form using an analog-to-digital converter;
  • displaying at least certain of the digitized images in separate windows on a personal computer based display device, using a first set of temporal and spatial parameters associated with each image in each window;
  • converting one or more of the video source images into a data storage format using a second set of temporal and spatial parameters associated with each image; and
  • simultaneously storing the converted images in a storage device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name a specific product but accuses the video monitoring and security systems used in "substantially all 2,370" of Lowe's retail stores in the United States (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Lowe's performs the steps of the claimed method but provides no specific details on the functionality, features, or operation of the accused systems (Compl. ¶19). The complaint also does not contain allegations regarding the commercial importance of the accused systems beyond their widespread use across Defendant's stores. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart (Exhibit "A") that was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶19). The complaint’s narrative theory is that Lowe’s, in its retail stores, operates video monitoring systems that practice each step of method Claim 12 of the ’462 Patent (Compl. ¶18-19). Without the exhibit, the specific factual basis for how each claim element is met by the accused systems is not detailed in the provided document. The allegations are made on "information and belief" that the systems receive video images, digitize them, display them in separate windows, convert them for storage using different parameters, and simultaneously store them (Compl. ¶17-18).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused Lowe's systems use two distinct sets of "temporal and spatial parameters"—one for display and a second for storage—as required by the claim. Evidence will be needed to show that the format used for recording is indeed different from the format used for live display and not merely a direct capture of the displayed video stream.
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "simultaneously storing" may be a focal point. A dispute could arise over whether the accused systems, which may buffer and write data sequentially from different streams, perform storage in a manner that is legally "simultaneous" as required by the claim, or if the term requires a more literal, concurrent writing process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a first set of temporal and spatial parameters" and "a second set of temporal and spatial parameters"

• Context and Importance: This concept is central to the claim, as it distinguishes the invention from prior art that simply recorded what was shown on screen. The case may turn on whether the accused systems actually use two different sets of parameters (e.g., one resolution/frame rate for a live multi-camera view and a higher resolution/frame rate for the stored video of a specific camera) or if the storage format is directly tied to the display format.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not require the two sets to be different, only that a "first set" is used for display and a "second set" is used for storage format conversion. Parties could argue that even if the sets are identical, they are still distinct "sets" applied at different stages of the process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the value of the invention lies in the difference between the two sets, stating that "the image representations need not be identical to the sizes and rates used for video monitors displaying the various images" (’462 Patent, col. 3:39-42). The patent abstract also notes the two sets "may or may not be identical," which, while not precluding identity, highlights the capability of non-identity as a feature (’462 Patent, Abstract).

The Term: "simultaneously storing"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the required timing of the final storage step. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern digital systems often use buffering and process data streams in rapid succession, which a defendant might argue is sequential, not simultaneous. Infringement will depend on whether this term is construed to mean strict, parallel writing to a storage medium or functionally contemporaneous recording from multiple sources.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system where "images from all sources are continuously recorded at the selected frame rate for each source," suggesting the invention's purpose is to avoid the gaps inherent in sequential switching systems, which could support a functional, rather than literal, definition of "simultaneously" storing (’462 Patent, col. 6:10-14).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue for a plain and ordinary meaning, suggesting that to "simultaneously store" multiple images requires that data from those multiple images are being written to the storage device at the exact same instant in time.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint only asserts a single count for "DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘462 PATENT" and does not plead facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. p. 5).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. It does, however, request that the court find the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to award attorneys' fees, but it pleads no specific facts regarding pre- or post-suit knowledge by the Defendant that would typically underpin a willfulness or exceptional case finding (Compl. ¶22; Prayer C).

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

• A central issue will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Lowe's surveillance system actually employ two distinct sets of spatial and temporal parameters for display versus storage, or is the stored video simply a recording of the displayed video? The answer will likely require expert analysis of the accused system's architecture.
• A key question of claim scope will be the construction of "simultaneously storing." The case may depend on whether the court interprets this to mean functionally contemporaneous capture from multiple sources, which a modern digital system may perform, or a stricter, literal parallel writing process to a storage medium.
• An overarching evidentiary question will be what facts Plaintiff can produce to support its infringement allegations, which are made on "information and belief." The complaint itself is sparse, and the outcome will depend on the evidence developed during discovery concerning the actual operation of the accused systems.