DCT
1:25-cv-02157
SOTAT LLC v. Merkury Innovations LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SOTAT, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Merkury Innovations, LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC; CLAYTON, MCKAY & BAILEY, PC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02157, S.D.N.Y., 03/14/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant resides in the State of New York and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of "Merkury" smart home surveillance cameras and associated mobile application infringes patents related to mobile surveillance systems that transmit data upon the detection of motion.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns network-connected security cameras that use motion detection as a trigger to selectively transmit surveillance data to a user's mobile device, aiming to improve efficiency over continuous-recording systems.
- Key Procedural History: The '809 Patent is a continuation of the application that matured into the '207 Patent, indicating they share a common specification. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of infringement via a letter on February 26, 2025, less than three weeks before filing this complaint, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-31 | Priority Date for '207 and '809 Patents |
| 2017-12-26 | U.S. Patent 9,854,207 Issues |
| 2019-12-17 | U.S. Patent 10,511,809 Issues |
| 2025-02-26 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2025-03-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,854,207 - "Mobile Surveillance System," Issued Dec. 26, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies numerous shortcomings with prior art electronic surveillance systems, including the need for constant human monitoring, delays between an event and user notification, inefficient use of data storage and bandwidth from continuous recording, and high rates of false alarms (’207 Patent, col. 1:28-67; Compl. ¶¶13-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture comprising a surveillance device (e.g., a camera with a motion detector), a server, and a mobile device (’207 Patent, Fig. 1). Instead of continuously streaming data, the system uses a motion detection mechanism to trigger the capture and/or transfer of surveillance data (audio, video, images) to the user's mobile device only when a motion measurement exceeds a set threshold, thereby providing timely, relevant alerts (’207 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-14).
- Technical Importance: This event-triggered approach aims to solve problems of data overload and delayed notifications common in older systems by focusing user attention and system resources on moments of potential significance (Compl. ¶¶18-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶29, 38).
- Independent Claim 19 requires:
- A mobile device configured to communicate with at least one camera at a surveillance area.
- The mobile device is configured to control activation, start/stop capture, and transfer of surveillance data.
- The surveillance data is "wirelessly communicated directly from a transmitter linked to the camera to the mobile device."
- The mobile device is configured to "activate upon detection of motion at the surveillance area" when motion measurements exceed a "determined threshold."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶58).
U.S. Patent No. 10,511,809 - "Mobile Surveillance System," Issued Dec. 17, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '207 Patent's application, the ’809 Patent addresses the same problems of inefficiency and lack of timely, actionable alerts in conventional surveillance systems (’809 Patent, col. 1:28-67).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is a method for conducting surveillance that leverages the same system architecture as the '207 Patent. A key feature highlighted in the asserted claim is the use of a "datebook" on the mobile device to schedule when the system transfers surveillance data (’809 Patent, col. 10:12-22). This adds a layer of user customization for managing data and notifications.
- Technical Importance: The method provides users with granular control over not just what data is captured (via motion triggers) but also when it is transferred, allowing for scheduled monitoring periods (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶30, 40).
- Independent Claim 10 requires the steps of:
- Receiving an instruction from a mobile device to control the start and stop of data capture.
- Capturing surveillance data with a camera that is operably engaged with a motion detection mechanism.
- Transferring the surveillance data to the mobile device when the motion detection mechanism obtains a measurement exceeding a predetermined threshold.
- Wherein the mobile device "displays a datebook comprising days of the week and times of day that can be synchronized with an application of the user device to schedule the transferring of surveillance data."
- The complaint references infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶69).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "Merkury" branded surveillance devices (including Smart Indoor Cam, Auto-Tracking Indoor Cam, Smart Outdoor Cam, Smart Doorbell Camera) used in conjunction with Defendant’s "Merkury Smart App" mobile application (Compl. ¶¶25-26). The complaint refers to the combination as the "Infringing System" (Compl. ¶38).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges that the accused products form a system where network-connected cameras with motion detectors capture surveillance data (Compl. ¶25, 28). Users install the Merkury Smart App on their mobile devices to configure and control the cameras (Compl. ¶33). When the camera's motion detector is triggered, surveillance data is communicated to the user's mobile device for notification and review (Compl. ¶34). The complaint also alleges that the mobile application includes a function to schedule the recording and transfer of surveillance data using a "datebook that includes days of the week and times of day" (Compl. ¶35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts in Exhibits C and D, which are not attached to the filed complaint. The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations.
’207 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mobile device configured to communicate with at least one camera...and...control activation...start and stop...and transfer of the surveillance data | End users use the Merkury Smart App on their mobile devices to wirelessly communicate with, configure, and control the accused cameras. | ¶33 | col. 4:50-52 |
| wherein, the surveillance data is wirelessly communicated directly from a transmitter linked to the camera to the mobile device | Surveillance data is wirelessly communicated from the accused camera product to the end user's mobile device. | ¶34 | col. 12:12-16 |
| the mobile device is further configured to activate upon detection of motion at the surveillance area...when the motion measurements exceeds a determined threshold | The user's mobile device activates upon receipt of surveillance data sent from the camera when its motion detection mechanism detects a measurement exceeding a threshold, and the mobile device emits or displays a notification. | ¶34 | col. 10:45-55 |
’809 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving an instruction from a mobile device to control start and stop of capture of surveillance data | Users employ the Merkury Smart App to activate the camera and control the start and stop of surveillance data capture. | ¶33 | col. 9:28-31 |
| capturing the surveillance data by a camera...operably engaged to a motion detection mechanism | Each accused camera product includes a camera and is operably engaged to a motion detection mechanism for detecting variations in motion. | ¶28 | col. 3:1-3 |
| transferring said surveillance data to the mobile device when the motion detection mechanism obtains a motion detection measurement that exceeds a predetermined threshold | Upon detection of motion exceeding a threshold, the surveillance data is wirelessly communicated from the camera product to the user's mobile device. | ¶34 | col. 9:18-24 |
| wherein the mobile device displays a datebook comprising days of the week and times of day...to schedule the transferring of surveillance data | Users use the Merkury Smart App to schedule the recording and transfer of data "using a datebook that includes days of the week and times of day." | ¶35 | col. 6:12-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute for the ’207 Patent may arise from the claim phrase "wirelessly communicated directly from a transmitter linked to the camera to the mobile device." The complaint alleges the accused system communicates data "via the server" (Compl. ¶34). This raises the question of whether communication that is routed through a server can be considered "direct" as required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: For the ’809 Patent, a key question will be whether the scheduling feature in the Merkury Smart App constitutes a "datebook" as that term is used in the patent. The analysis will depend on the specific interface and functionality of the accused app compared to the patent's description.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "wirelessly communicated directly from a transmitter...to the mobile device" (’207 Patent, cl. 19)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint alleges the accused system operates "via the server" (Compl. ¶34). The definition of "directly" will determine whether a server-mediated architecture falls within the scope of this claim. Practitioners may focus on this term as a primary non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s objective is to provide timely alerts and overcome delays in prior art (’207 Patent, col. 2:1-4). A party could argue "directly" is meant to distinguish from systems requiring manual data retrieval or slow, multi-step notification processes, not necessarily to exclude standard network routing through a server.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of "directly" suggests an unmediated path. Furthermore, the patent describes various system configurations, including one explicitly showing a server between the surveillance area and the mobile device (’207 Patent, Fig. 1), while other claims (like claim 19) omit the server. This omission could be interpreted as an intentional choice to claim a system without an intermediary server.
The Term: "datebook" (’809 Patent, cl. 10)
- Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for this element hinges on whether the scheduling feature in the Merkury Smart App qualifies as a "datebook." Defendant may argue its scheduler is a common feature that does not meet the specific meaning of "datebook" as contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself provides context, defining it as comprising "days of the week and times of day that can be synchronized with an application...to schedule the transferring of surveillance data" (’809 Patent, col. 10:18-22). Plaintiff will likely argue that any interface meeting this functional description is a "datebook."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more descriptive embodiment, stating "the datebook depicts a month of dates associated with a time of day and/or event" (’809 Patent, col. 6:14-16). A party could argue this requires a more specific, calendar-like visual representation, rather than any generic list for scheduling.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant’s marketing, user manuals, and website, which allegedly instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶37, 63, 74). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are material components "especially made or adapted for use" in the patented system and are not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶43, 64, 75).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Defendant gained knowledge of the patents and its alleged infringement "at least February 26, 2025," the date of Plaintiff's notice letter, and continued its allegedly infringing conduct despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶53, 56).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "wirelessly communicated directly," as used in the ’207 Patent, be construed to cover the accused system’s architecture, which allegedly routes surveillance data "via the server"? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive for infringement of that patent.
- A second key issue will be claim scope and characterization: does the scheduling feature within the accused "Merkury Smart App" function as the "datebook" required by claim 10 of the ’809 Patent, or is it a generic scheduling tool that falls outside the claim's specific limitations?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: the case will require a factual determination of precisely how the accused Merkury system transmits data from camera to mobile device, and how its scheduling interface is presented to the user, to properly compare its functionality against the construed claims.