Survmatic LLC v. Soliom Smart Technology Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: SurvMatic LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Soliom Smart Technology Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00726, E.D. Tex., 07/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s surveillance products infringe a patent related to remote video surveillance systems that use cellular or wireless networks.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns systems for monitoring remote locations using digital cameras and transmitting video data over high-bandwidth wireless networks to a user's mobile device.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,688,203 - "Surveillance device by use of digital cameras linked to a cellular or wireless telephone"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,688,203, “Surveillance device by use of digital cameras linked to a cellular or wireless telephone,” issued March 30, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a surveillance system that can transmit streaming video from a remote location to a mobile terminal, which was not considered practical with the network congestion and limited bandwidth of then-existing 2G and 3G wireless networks (’203 Patent, col. 2:1-5, 26-29). Prior art systems were also described as being inactive until triggered by an alarm or a remote user call, preventing review of events immediately preceding a trigger (’203 Patent, col. 1:65-col. 2:2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a surveillance device that uses a "fourth generation" (4G) wireless network to overcome prior bandwidth limitations (’203 Patent, col. 2:26-29). The system employs digital cameras that continuously record video to a "recirculating non volatile memory," which overwrites the oldest data once full (’203 Patent, col. 3:21-28). When an alarm is triggered, video from a period "prior to and after the time of triggering" is transferred to a separate "non volatile event memory" for later retrieval and transmission to the remote user over the 4G network (’203 Patent, col. 4:39-44, 52-56). A block diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the cameras, control unit, recirculating memory, and event memory (’203 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution proposed to leverage the higher bandwidth of emerging 4G networks (specifically referencing IEEE 802.16) to enable true streaming video surveillance, a capability the patent asserts was not feasible on older 2G/3G networks (’203 Patent, col. 3:4-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including "Exemplary '203 Patent Claims" identified in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, 16). The patent contains two independent claims, 1 and 6.
• Independent Claim 1: A portable, mobile fourth generation wireless video surveillance device comprising:
  • a controller, alarm sensors, and digital video cameras
  • a "recirculating non volatile storage memory"
  • a "non volatile event memory"
  • a "4G (802.16) wireless network subscriber interface"
  • a remote 4G terminal with software to instruct a 4G Base Station to set up an appropriate communication channel
  • wherein transfer of video from the recirculating memory to the event memory is preset to include video recorded "prior to and after the time of triggering of the alarm sensor"
• Independent Claim 6: A portable, mobile fourth generation wireless video surveillance device with a similar list of hardware components, but with a different triggering and notification mechanism:
  • wherein the triggering of an alarm causes the controller to "send a text message to the remote cellular or wireless subscriber address"
  • informing the subscriber of the alarm event, time, and camera location
  • the remote subscriber then responds by selecting the device's address from a software table and initiating a call

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, 16). This exhibit was not publicly available at the time of this analysis.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the '203 Patent (’203 Patent, Compl. ¶16). It further alleges that the Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products, and provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11, 14). The complaint does not provide further detail on the specific functionality or market context of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the "Exemplary '203 Patent Claims" both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11). The pleading states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '203 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and that these charts demonstrate that the products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). As Exhibit 2 was not provided with the complaint, the specific factual basis for these allegations is not detailed in the pleading itself. The narrative infringement theory is that the Defendant's products incorporate the patented surveillance technology (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"fourth generation wireless" / "4G (802.16)"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in both independent claims and is central to the invention's stated purpose of overcoming the bandwidth limitations of prior networks. Its construction will be critical to determining the scope of the claims, particularly whether they read on modern wireless technologies like 4G LTE or 5G, which differ from the IEEE 802.16 (WiMAX) standard explicitly mentioned in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "4G" more generally as a "new interconnected fixed and mobile network which will replace the existing voice and broadband wireless networks" and enable "dynamic bandwidth allocation" (’203 Patent, col. 3:4-9). This language could support an interpretation covering any high-bandwidth wireless network technology that succeeded 2G/3G.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Both independent claims explicitly recite "4G (802.16) wireless network subscriber interface" (’203 Patent, col. 4:45-46; col. 5:18-19). The specification also repeatedly links the technology to the "IEEE 802.16 series of specifications" (’203 Patent, col. 3:4-5). This could support an argument that the claims are limited to devices using the WiMAX family of standards and do not cover devices using different cellular standards like LTE or 5G.

"recirculating non volatile storage memory"

• Context and Importance: This element, required by both independent claims, defines a specific memory architecture. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products implement this specific two-stage memory system (recirculating buffer plus a separate event memory) or use a different method for pre-alarm recording.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The function is described as storing outputs "continuously on non-volatile memory" and when full, the storage "will begin at the initial address, overwriting the old data" (’203 Patent, col. 3:24-28). This could be argued to cover any system that uses a form of continuous loop recording.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification consistently describe a two-part system where, upon a trigger, video is transferred from the "recirculating memory" to a separate "event memory" (’203 Patent, col. 4:52-56). An allegedly infringing device that instead flags a portion of a single, continuous recording without a separate transfer to a distinct "event memory" may not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the '203 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that the filing and service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringing activities are therefore willful (Compl. ¶13-14). No specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. A central issue will be one of technological scope: Is the claim term "4G (802.16)," as described in a patent from the 2006-2007 timeframe, limited to the WiMAX standard explicitly recited, or can it be construed to cover the modern 4G LTE and 5G cellular technologies used by contemporary surveillance devices?

2. A key dispute will likely concern architectural equivalence: Do the accused products implement the specific two-stage memory structure recited in the claims—a "recirculating non volatile storage memory" from which data is transferred to a separate "non volatile event memory"—or do they achieve a similar result using a fundamentally different data storage and retrieval architecture?

3. The case may also turn on a functional element of notice: For infringement of Claim 6, a key evidentiary question will be whether the accused system, upon an alarm, sends a "text message" to the user, as the claim requires, or if it uses a different notification method such as a push notification from a proprietary application, raising the question of whether such a notification constitutes a "text message" under the claim's language.