DCT
2:17-cv-02604
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: 2:17-cv-02604, D. Nev., 10/05/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant allegedly transacting business and offering infringing products for sale in the District of Nevada, combined with Plaintiff’s principal place of business and alleged harm occurring within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud-based alarm verification software infringes a patent related to systems for managing and standardizing surveillance video from disparate sources for remote viewing by emergency responders.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the security and emergency response sector, addressing the challenge of providing first responders with timely video from a variety of proprietary security systems during an alarm event.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant's founder and CEO, Clayton Kemp, was previously the CEO of a company that entered into a "Central Station Agreement for Hosted Video Verification" with Plaintiff in 2012. The complaint alleges Kemp used knowledge gained from this relationship to develop the accused product. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit via a letter on March 29, 2017, approximately six months before filing the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-06-04 | ’090 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012 | Universal Monitoring (led by Defendant's future founder) enters agreement with Plaintiff |
| 2013-04-09 | ’090 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016 | Defendant's predecessor LLC formed |
| 2017-02 | Defendant's predecessor LLC dissolved |
| 2017-03-29 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding the ’090 Patent |
| 2017-06 | Defendant announces integration of Accused Product with SureView System's software |
| 2017-10-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 the difficulty of managing numerous, distinct Digital Video Recorder (DVR) systems that use proprietary software, which requires end users to install specific software for each brand they wish to access. (’090 Patent, col. 1:22-29). This fragmentation creates a "large disconnect" between private surveillance systems and law enforcement, delaying access to critical footage and forcing responders to enter situations without visual information. (’090 Patent, col. 2:34-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a platform that uses a central server to connect to a "multiplicity of different format DVRs." (’090 Patent, Claim 1). This server can download live or recorded video, convert it from its proprietary format into a standardized format (e.g., Flash video, MPEG-4), and then make that standardized video accessible to remote viewers, such as emergency responders, on a variety of devices without requiring proprietary software. (’090 Patent, col. 3:44-62; col. 4:4-8). The system is designed to allow authorized personnel to "pull" video from an incident location as they approach. (’090 Patent, col. 4:35-44).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create interoperability in a fragmented market, bridging the information gap between on-site security hardware and the mobile systems used by emergency services. (’090 Patent, col. 2:34-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 23, and 24. (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) requires:
- Providing a system with at least one remote viewer, a multiplicity of different format DVRs, a storage device, and at least one central server.
- Capturing surveillance video.
- Converting the video to a format suitable for display on different remote viewers and for network transport, and storing it.
- Providing responders access to the converted video via the remote viewer.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "Cooperative Alarm Sharing Transmission ('CAST') software product." (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- CAST is described as a "cloud-based software system" designed to integrate with central monitoring stations' software. (Compl. ¶1, 13). Its function is to provide "video verification of an alarm triggering event" by delivering video from a "unified cloud-based platform to emergency responders." (Compl. ¶4). The alleged workflow involves an alarm triggering video capture, verification by a central station dispatcher, and the generation of a 4-digit incident code. (Compl. ¶15, 16). Responding officers can then enter this code on a public-facing website ("incidentcode.com") to view "real-time video clips and location mapping." (Compl. ¶17). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows the system running on a desktop, tablet, and phone, indicating cross-platform access. (Compl. ¶20, p. 8 Visual). The complaint alleges the product's market importance stems from its compatibility with "current, mainstream monitoring platforms." (Compl. ¶21).
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... | The complaint describes the accused CAST product as a "cloud-based software system" that integrates with "central monitoring station platforms and alarm and surveillance systems" and is viewed by "emergency responders" on remote devices. | ¶13, ¶17 | col. 3:44-51 |
| b. capturing surveillance video from a surveillance area; | An alarm at a monitored location allegedly triggers the capture of video. A visual in the complaint depicts this step: "An incident occurs triggering a security alarm." | ¶15 | col. 5:56-59 |
| 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 and storing it on the storage device; | The complaint alleges that CAST provides video "from a unified cloud-based platform" and is compatible with "mainstream monitoring platforms," which suggests a standardization or conversion process to achieve cross-platform viewing. | ¶4, ¶21 | col. 3:51-59 |
| d. providing access to the converted surveillance video to the responders through the at least one remote viewer. | The complaint alleges that responding officers receive an incident code and use it on a website ("incidentcode.com") to view video clips on a "web accessible device," as depicted in a provided screenshot. | ¶17 | col. 4:35-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the defendant’s "cloud-based software system" (Compl. ¶13) is equivalent to the patent’s architecture of a "central server" connected to a "multiplicity of different format DVRs." (’090 Patent, Claim 1). The defense could argue that a modern, distributed cloud infrastructure is architecturally distinct from the more centralized model described in the 2010-priority patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of claims requiring a "converting" step, but primarily provides evidence of unified access. A key technical question will be what evidence shows that the CAST system actually performs a video format "conversion" as taught in the patent specification ('090 Patent, col. 4:4-8), rather than a different method of achieving interoperability, such as linking or pass-through streaming.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "converting the surveillance video"
- Context and Importance: This term is at the technical core of the patented solution. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the defendant’s method for providing unified video access is found to constitute "converting." Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue its cloud-based system streams or links to video without performing the specific file format transcoding described in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the purpose of converting is to make video "viewable by standard applications" and to create a "common format for viewing across multiple platforms." (’090 Patent, col. 3:51-54; col. 4:4-8). A party could argue that any technical process that transforms disparate video inputs into a single, universally accessible output meets the functional goal of "converting."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a list of exemplary formats: ".flv, .mp4, .14v, .avi and .ogv." (’090 Patent, col. 3:59-62). A party could argue this grounds the term "converting" in the specific act of transcoding a file from one of these formats to another, and that other methods of enabling interoperability fall outside this scope.
The Term: "central server"
- Context and Importance: The architecture of the claimed system is fundamental. The defendant’s system is described as "cloud-based" (Compl. ¶4), and its relationship to the patent's "central server" will likely be a point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the server’s function as the intermediary that "downloads the live images from these various DVR units" and makes them available to viewers. (’090 Patent, col. 3:55-58). Plaintiff may argue that any backend system, including a distributed cloud platform, that performs this centralizing and distribution function meets the claim limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s diagram (FIG. 1) depicts the "Server" (1) as a singular, distinct block. The consistent use of the singular term could support an interpretation limited to a more traditional, monolithic server architecture, as opposed to a diffuse, geographically distributed cloud service.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by claiming Defendant instructs and trains customers, including "central station employees, 911 dispatchers, and local law enforcement on proper usage methods." (Compl. ¶19, 29). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the CAST product is a material component of the invention, is especially adapted for infringement, and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on two grounds. First, alleged pre-suit knowledge via a notice letter sent on March 29, 2017. (Compl. ¶26). Second, and more significantly, the complaint alleges that Defendant’s founder had access to Plaintiff’s technology through a prior business relationship and "willfully copied I-View’s products." (Compl. ¶6, 28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the patent’s claim language for a "central server" architecture, which originated in 2010, be construed to read on the accused "cloud-based" system, or has the technology evolved into a distinct, non-infringing paradigm?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused system, by providing "unified" video access from various platforms, necessarily perform the claimed step of "converting the surveillance video," or is there a fundamental difference in how it achieves interoperability that may fall outside the claim scope?
- A third central issue relates to intent: the complaint alleges not just notice but that Defendant’s founder used knowledge from a prior business relationship with Plaintiff to "develop the flagship product CAST." This raises significant questions of potential copying that extend beyond typical willfulness allegations and could heavily influence the narrative and potential damages in the case.