3:17-cv-00686
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: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:17-cv-00686, D. Nev., 11/21/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Nevada because the Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada and is therefore incorporated in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart video doorbell products, associated mobile applications, and cloud services infringe five U.S. patents related to entryway communication and monitoring systems.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves smart home devices, specifically video doorbells that allow users to remotely see, hear, and speak with visitors at an entrance via a smartphone.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has licensed its patent portfolio to several major companies in the entryway management industry, including the makers of the "Ring" video doorbell. It further alleges that the patents-in-suit, or related patents from the same family, have been asserted in prior litigation against Defendant and its direct competitors, which may be relevant to the allegations of knowledge and willfulness.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-10-15 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2016-11-01 | U.S. Patent No. 9,485,478 Issues |
| 2016-12-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,516,284 Issues |
| 2017-04-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,635,323 Issues |
| 2017-05-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,648,290 Issues |
| 2017-10-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,706,178 Issues |
| 2017-11-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,485,478 - "Communication and Monitoring System"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes problems associated with receiving visitors at a home or office, particularly when the occupant is absent, which can create security risks and prevent communication with legitimate visitors like delivery personnel (’478 Patent, col. 1:33-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system comprising a wireless exterior module (e.g., a doorbell unit), a computerized controller, and a remote peripheral device (e.g., a cell phone) (’478 Patent, Abstract). The exterior module detects a visitor’s presence, captures audio and video, and transmits it via the controller to the remote device, enabling real-time, two-way communication and monitoring from any location (’478 Patent, col. 2:6-31; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for remotely managing and securing a primary point of entry to a property, a foundational concept in the consumer smart home and security market (Compl. ¶4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
- The essential elements of Claim 1, a method claim, include:
- Detecting the presence of a person at an entrance.
- Transmitting real-time streaming digital video of the person to a computerized controller.
- Providing a graphic user interface on a remote cell phone for a user to view the video.
- The detection step uses a wireless device equipped with a proximity sensor, microphone, speaker, video camera, and keypad.
- The transmission step occurs wirelessly over the internet.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 9,516,284 - "Communication and Monitoring System"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent, which shares a common specification with the ’478 Patent, addresses the inability of traditional door answering systems to provide interactive, remote communication with visitors, thereby limiting both security and convenience (’284 Patent, col. 1:33-49).
- The Patented Solution: The patented method enables a user's peripheral device, such as a cell phone, to function as a remote entryway management console (’284 Patent, Fig. 1). After an exterior device is activated (e.g., by a button press), it wirelessly transmits streaming video and audio to the user's cell phone, which can display the video, play the audio, show an alert, and facilitate a two-way conversation with the visitor (’284 Patent, col. 4:11-30).
- Technical Importance: This approach integrates entryway monitoring directly into a ubiquitous consumer device—the cell phone—bypassing the need for dedicated, stationary interior monitoring stations (Compl. ¶4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- The essential elements of Claim 1, a method claim, include:
- Transmitting streaming video data wirelessly from an exterior device after a button press.
- Receiving the video data on a cell phone.
- Displaying the video on the cell phone.
- Receiving audio data from the entrance on the cell phone.
- Receiving and displaying an alert on the cell phone.
- Speaking with the person at the entrance through the software application on the cell phone.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 9,635,323 - "Communication and Monitoring System"
Technology Synopsis
The ’323 Patent claims a system where an exterior device (with a camera, microphone, speaker, transceiver, proximity detector, and keypad) works with a software application on a peripheral device (e.g., a cell phone). The application allows users to view streaming video, receive audio, get messages and notifications based on events at the entrance, and provide audio back to the exterior device (Compl. ¶¶ 58-62).
Asserted Claims
At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶57).
Accused Features
The accused features include the Zmodo Greet doorbell's hardware components working in conjunction with the Zmodo mobile application, which allegedly allows for user administration and provides the claimed remote monitoring and communication functionalities (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 60, 62).
U.S. Patent No. 9,706,178 - "Communication and Monitoring System"
Technology Synopsis
The ’178 Patent claims a system that includes an exterior device, a software application running on a peripheral device (cell phone), and a storage system. The system enables the exterior device to transmit video, the peripheral device to receive and display it, and for user access to be administered on the software application, with a hierarchy of storage that is wirelessly accessible (Compl. ¶¶ 71-77).
Asserted Claims
At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶70).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the Zmodo Greet doorbell, its associated mobile application, and the Zmodo cloud storage service combine to form the infringing system. The cloud service is alleged to provide the wirelessly accessible, hierarchical storage for video and audio data (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 77; Fig. 9).
U.S. Patent No. 9,648,290 - "Communication and Monitoring System"
Technology Synopsis
The ’290 Patent claims a system where a mobile application displays video transmitted from an exterior device that includes a keypad, microphone, speaker, proximity sensor, and a battery. The application provides a graphical user interface (GUI) to view real-time video and audio, receive messages, and view live streaming video separate from a button-press or proximity-detection event (Compl. ¶¶ 86-89).
Asserted Claims
At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶85).
Accused Features
The complaint targets the Zmodo Greet hardware and the Zmodo mobile application's GUI. Specific accused features include the ability to receive alerts and then view live video, as well as the "on-demand" feature that allows a user to initiate a live video stream from the doorbell at any time (Compl. ¶89; Fig. 2).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Zmodo Greet Smart Wi-Fi Video Doorbell (including models ZM-SHD003B and ZM-CJAED), the associated Zmodo Android and iOS applications, and the supporting cloud service infrastructure (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused Greet doorbell is an exterior device that connects to existing doorbell wiring and a home Wi-Fi network (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 1). It is equipped with a camera, microphone, speaker, motion sensor, and a main button (Compl. ¶23; p. 8, Fig. 5).
- Upon detecting motion or a button press, the device sends an alert to a user’s smartphone, allowing the user to see, hear, and speak with the person at the entrance through the Zmodo application (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 24, 25). The complaint includes a marketing image showing a user receiving a "call" on a smartphone from the "Greet" doorbell (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 4). The system also allows for "on-demand" live video viewing, independent of any triggering event (Compl. p. 6, Fig. 2).
- The complaint alleges that the system relies on constant communication with cloud servers to provide these functionalities, and that these servers store video and audio data (Compl. ¶27; p. 11, Fig. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,485,478 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 product's motion sensor detects the presence of a person at an entrance, which triggers alerts and video recording. | ¶31 | col. 2:12-13 |
| (b) transmitting, to a computerized controller running a software application, real-time streaming digital video of the person at the entrance recorded using a wireless device located proximate the entrance; | The Greet doorbell wirelessly transmits video to Zmodo's cloud servers, which run the software that manages the system. | ¶32 | col. 2:18-22 |
| (c) providing, with the application software running at the computerized controller, a graphic user interface to a remote peripheral device comprising a cell phone by which a user ... may view the real-time streaming digital video... | The Zmodo Android and iOS applications provide a graphical user interface on a user's cell phone to view the live video feed from the doorbell. | ¶33 | col. 2:22-31 |
| wherein said detecting of step (a) comprises using the wireless device comprising a proximity sensor, a microphone, a speaker, a video camera, a keypad having one or more buttons... | The Greet doorbell is a wireless device alleged to contain these hardware components. A marketing diagram explicitly labels the motion sensor, speaker, and main button. | ¶34 | col. 2:12-18 |
| wherein said transmitting of step (b) comprises transmitting, through the internet, real-time streaming digital video wirelessly. | The product's user guide explains that the smart doorbell allows a user to answer the door from anywhere with an internet connection, and the system communicates with cloud servers. | ¶35 | col. 4:2-3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Zmodo's distributed cloud infrastructure (Compl. ¶27) meets the definition of a "computerized controller running a software application" as described in the patent. The patent's embodiments depict both a local personal computer (Fig. 1) and a more distributed network architecture (Fig. 6), which could lead to disputes over the intended scope of this term.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires "detecting the presence of a person" using a "proximity sensor." The complaint alleges the accused product's "motion sensor" performs this function (Compl. ¶31; p. 8, Fig. 5). The case may turn on whether, as a technical matter, the accused motion sensor's functionality is equivalent to that of the claimed "proximity sensor."
U.S. Patent No. 9,516,284 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) transmitting streaming video data wirelessly using an exterior device ... after one of the one or more buttons on the keypad is pressed by the person at the entrance; | The Greet doorbell transmits video data after a visitor presses the main button. | ¶44 | col. 2:12-22 |
| (b) receiving the streaming video data wirelessly on at least one peripheral device which is a cell phone; | The Zmodo mobile application, running on a cell phone, receives the video data from the doorbell. | ¶45 | col. 2:27-31 |
| (c) displaying the video transmitted wirelessly by the exterior device on the at least one peripheral device; | The Zmodo application displays the live video feed on the cell phone screen. A marketing image shows this functionality in action. | ¶46 | col. 2:22-27 |
| (d) receiving audio data from the person at the entrance on the peripheral device, which is transmitted wirelessly by the exterior device; | The Zmodo application on the cell phone receives audio from the visitor at the doorbell. | ¶47 | col. 3:32-35 |
| (e) receiving and displaying an alert on the peripheral device, which is transmitted wirelessly from the exterior device after pressing one of the one or more buttons... | When the doorbell button is pressed, the Zmodo application receives and displays an alert, presented as an incoming call from the device. | ¶48 | col. 10:49-54 |
| (f) speaking with the person at the entrance through the software application running on the peripheral device. | The Zmodo application enables two-way audio, allowing the user to speak to the visitor through the cell phone. | ¶49 | col. 3:36-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Does the sequence of events described—a button press triggering an alert and a video stream to a phone—constitute a single, integrated method as claimed? A defendant might attempt to characterize these as discrete, unrelated functions to argue that not all steps of the claimed method are performed.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the various data transmissions (video, audio, alert) are all performed as recited by the claim in response to a single button press? The analysis may focus on the system's software logic and network traffic to confirm the sequence of operations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"computerized controller"
Context and Importance
This term appears in the independent claim of the ’478 Patent and is foundational to the claimed system architecture. The infringement theory relies on mapping this element to Defendant's cloud servers. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a system using a distributed, manufacturer-operated cloud backend can infringe a claim written when local processing on a personal computer was a common embodiment.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the controller simply as "running a software application" and being in "wireless electronic communication with the wireless exterior module" (’478 Patent, Abstract). This general functional language could support an interpretation that covers any computing system, local or remote, that performs the recited functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent explicitly labels element 80 as a "Personal Computer" running a "GUI Database Application" (’478 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 7:5-8). This could support an argument that the term was understood by the inventor to mean a local, user-controlled computer, not a remote, multi-tenant cloud service.
"proximity sensor"
Context and Importance
This term is the first interactive element in claim 1 of the ’478 Patent, responsible for the initial "detecting" step. The complaint equates this term with the accused product's "motion sensor." The viability of the infringement claim depends on this equivalence.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "proximity sensor 26 activates the camera 22 upon detection of movement" (’478 Patent, col. 8:17-19). This functional description is consistent with the general understanding of a motion sensor used in a security context.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: There is little intrinsic evidence to suggest a narrower meaning. A defendant might argue that in the art of electronics, a "proximity sensor" and a "motion sensor" (e.g., a PIR sensor) are distinct components with different operating principles, but the patent's own description appears to use the terms based on their function ("detection of movement") rather than a specific technology.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) for all five patents. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant provides customers with instructions on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner through its website, which offers "[v]ideo tutorials and more" (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 52, 65, 80, 99).
Willful Infringement
While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint lays the factual groundwork for willfulness by alleging pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge, or should have had knowledge, of the patents because they were asserted against its competitors (SkyBell Technologies, Inc. and August Home, Inc.) in prior litigation. Furthermore, it alleges knowledge because a related patent from the same family (the '638 Patent) was previously asserted against Defendant itself (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 51, 64, 79, 98).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "computerized controller," described in patent embodiments as a local personal computer, be construed to read on the Defendant’s distributed, cloud-based server infrastructure that facilitates the accused system's operation? The outcome of this construction could determine whether the architecture of modern, cloud-reliant smart devices falls within the scope of the asserted claims.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge: what evidence, beyond the allegations in the complaint, will establish that Defendant knew of the specific patents-in-suit prior to the litigation? The answer will be critical for potential damages enhancement, hinging on the alleged relevance of litigation against competitors and prior disputes over a related patent.
- A central technical question will be one of component equivalence: does the accused product’s "motion sensor" function in the same manner as the claimed "proximity sensor" to achieve the same result, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation that could place the accused system outside the literal scope of the claims?