DCT
2:17-cv-02714
Eyetalk365 LLC v. Zmodo Technology Corp Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Eyetalk365, LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Zmodo Technology Corporation Limited (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Parry Tyndall White; Klemchuk LLP
- Case Identification: 3:16-cv-00789, W.D.N.C., 11/14/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's substantial business within the judicial district, including acts that constitute direct infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Zmodo Greet Smart Wi-Fi Video Doorbell infringes a patent related to communication and monitoring systems for building entrances.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the smart home and entryway security market, specifically concerning video doorbells that allow remote audio-visual communication with visitors.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that several major companies in the entryway management industry, including the makers of the "Ring" video doorbell, have previously licensed the Plaintiff's patent portfolio without litigation, a fact that may be presented to suggest the patent's value and industry recognition.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-10-15 | U.S. Patent No. 9,432,638 Priority Date |
| 2016-08-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,432,638 Issue Date |
| 2016-11-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,432,638 - “Communication and Monitoring System”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies security risks and inconveniences associated with traditional methods of receiving visitors at a home or office, particularly when an occupant is absent or when a visitor is unknown or unwelcome (ʼ638 Patent, col. 1:38-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an audio-video communication system that integrates a wireless exterior module at an entrance, a computerized controller, and a remote peripheral device (e.g., a cell phone) ('638 Patent, Abstract). This system detects a visitor's presence, establishes a two-way audio and video link, and allows a user to remotely see, speak with, and listen to the visitor, thereby managing access from anywhere ('638 Patent, col. 2:12-36). The system architecture is depicted in figures such as Figure 6, which illustrates the interaction between a digital wireless camera (210), a wireless command computer (240), and remote devices (275-279).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for interactive, remote monitoring of an entryway, a significant step beyond passive security cameras or simple audio-only intercoms by enabling real-time communication and control ('638 Patent, col. 11:35-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6 (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Detecting the presence of a person at an entrance using a wireless video camera system that includes a proximity sensor and a keypad with one or more buttons.
- Transmitting digital streaming video from the camera to a computerized controller running a software application.
- Providing a graphical user interface (GUI) on a remote cell phone, via the controller's software application, to allow a user to view the video.
- Sending an alert to the cell phone when the keypad is pressed.
- Enabling the user to speak with and listen to the person at the entrance through the cell phone's GUI after the keypad is pressed.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Zmodo Greet Smart Wi-Fi Video Doorbell (the “Greet”) (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Greet is a smart doorbell that connects to a user's Wi-Fi network (Compl. ¶13, Fig. 1). Its core functionality includes detecting a person's presence, sending alerts to a user's smartphone, and enabling two-way audio and live video communication between the user (via a mobile app) and the visitor at the door (Compl. ¶¶14-16, 19-20). A product diagram in the complaint identifies key components, including a camera, motion sensor, main button, speaker, and microphone (Compl. Fig. 3). The complaint includes a photograph depicting the Greet's mobile application in use, showing a live video feed from the doorbell on a smartphone screen (Compl. Fig. 2). Another annotated diagram highlights features such as a "720p HD Camera" and a "Light Sensor" for night vision (Compl. Fig. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'638 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) detecting the presence of a person at the entrance; | The Greet detects the presence of a person at an entrance. | ¶14 | col. 2:18-19 |
| (b) transmitting, to a computerized controller running a software application, video of the person at the entrance recorded using a camera located proximate the entrance; | The Greet transmits video recorded by its camera to a computerized controller running a software application. | ¶15 | col. 2:21-23 |
| (c) providing...a graphical user interface to a remote peripheral device by which a user...which comprises a cell phone, may view the video... | The Greet system provides a GUI on a cell phone, allowing a user to view video from the doorbell. | ¶16 | col. 2:30-33 |
| wherein said detecting...comprises using a wireless video camera comprising a microphone, a speaker, an RF receiver, an RF transmitter, a proximity sensor and uses a keypad comprising one or more buttons... | The Greet is alleged to be a wireless video camera with a microphone, speaker, RF components, a proximity sensor, and a keypad with buttons. | ¶17 | col. 8:19-37 |
| (d) sending an alert to the cell phone that the person is present at the entrance after the keypad is pressed... | The Greet sends an alert to a cell phone after its button is pressed. | ¶18 | col. 25:41-44 |
| (e) speaking with the person at the entrance through the graphical user interface on the cell phone after the keypad is pressed... | The Greet allows a user to speak to a visitor through the GUI on a cell phone after the button is pressed. | ¶19 | col. 11:9-13 |
| (f) listening to the person at the entrance via the cell phone through use of the graphical user interface after the keypad is pressed... | The Greet allows a user to listen to a visitor via the cell phone's GUI after the button is pressed. | ¶20 | col. 25:45-50 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires a "computerized controller running a software application". The patent illustrates this as a local personal computer ('638 Patent, Fig. 1, item 80). The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether this term can be construed to cover the likely distributed architecture of the accused system, which may rely on processing within the doorbell, a cloud server, and a smartphone app, rather than a single, discrete controller.
- Technical Questions: The claim recites a "proximity sensor" for detecting a person's presence, whereas the complaint's exhibit for the accused product identifies a "Motion Sensor" (Compl. Fig. 3). A potential dispute is whether the accused "Motion Sensor" meets the "proximity sensor" limitation as understood in the context of the patent. The patent specification itself states that the "proximity sensor 26 activates the camera 22 upon detection of movement," which may support the patentee's position that the terms are interchangeable for the purpose of the invention ('638 Patent, col. 8:26-28).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "computerized controller"
Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical for determining the architecture of an infringing system. The dispute will likely center on whether the "controller" must be a single, local device as shown in the patent's embodiments or if it can encompass a modern, distributed system (e.g., device-cloud-app).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. The specification describes its function as controlling communications, recording, and playback, which could arguably be performed by a distributed system ('638 Patent, col. 2:27-30).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s preferred embodiments explicitly depict the controller as a "personal computer 80" or a "Wireless Command Computer 240" located in the interior of the building ('638 Patent, col. 7:10-12; Fig. 1; Fig. 6). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the term to a localized, non-distributed computing device.
The Term: "proximity sensor"
Context and Importance: This term is a specific component required by the asserted independent claim for detecting a visitor. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product is described as having a "motion sensor," raising a question of literal infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the function of the "proximity sensor 26" as activating the camera "upon detection of movement" ('638 Patent, col. 8:26-28). This language suggests that, in the context of the patent, the patentee may have intended the term to be broad enough to cover sensors that detect motion.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that in the relevant technical field, a "proximity sensor" (which typically measures distance) and a "motion sensor" (which typically detects changes in a field, like a passive infrared sensor) are distinct components with different operating principles. They may argue the patent's use of the term limits the claim to a specific type of sensor not present in the accused device.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant induces infringement by providing instructions on its website and support pages that guide customers to use the Greet product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶21).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’638 Patent "since at least the filing date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶22). This forms the basis for potential post-suit willful infringement, and the plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the case is exceptional (Compl. ¶D, p. 8).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "computerized controller," which is illustrated in the patent's embodiments as a single, local personal computer, be construed to cover the distributed computing architecture (device, cloud, and smartphone app) of a modern smart doorbell system?
- A second central issue will be one of technical equivalence: does the accused product’s "motion sensor" meet the claim limitation of a "proximity sensor"? The case may turn on whether the patent’s own description, which links the term to "detection of movement," is sufficient to broaden the claim's scope or if the terms will be viewed as representing distinct technologies.