I-View Now, recognized as a leader in the security industry for its cloud-based centrally managed security monitoring solutions, filed a patent infringement complaint in October 2017 against competitor Police Priority. I-View first filed its Complaint in the U.S. District Court of Nevada, and after months of motion hearings was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court of Delaware on September 4, 2018. Police Priority, founded in 2016 by Clayton Kemp as a North Carolina Limited Liability Company and subsequently dissolved and incorporated in Delaware in 2017, uses their flagship Cooperative Alarm Sharing Transmission (“CAST”) technology to provide customers with cloud-based streamlined emergency response solutions. In particular, CAST enables central monitoring station dispatchers to, in response to an alarm-triggering event, send emergency responders an incident code allowing them to view pre-selected video clips of the emergency to which they are responding.
I-View alleges that Police Priority’s CAST technology infringes its 8,417,090 patent (“the ‘090 patent”) generally covering the management of surveillance devices and surveillance footage, and more specifically, covering video alarm monitoring from a central server and the conversion of alarm data and surveillance video into a standardized format for distribution to end users (e.g., emergency responders) across multiple platforms. According to I-View, the technology disclosed in the ‘090 patent not only enables the streamlined integration of industry video systems, central station platforms, and security systems, but the on-site standardization conversion leverages the excess computing power of on-site surveillance systems to reduce centrally managed server overhead and increase distribution speeds to emergency responders.
In its complaint, I-View claims it developed the streamlined surveillance management cloud architecture upon which CAST is based. In particular, I-View alleges that Police Priority’s CAST technology, a cloud-based security system that integrates with a central monitoring station’s operational software to provide video verification of an alarm-triggering event and distribute the captured video to emergency responders via a unified cloud-based platform, infringes the ‘090 patent’s disclosure of real-time monitoring and distribution services compatible with mainstream monitoring platforms with access to a multiplicity of remote surveillance systems.
Additionally, while no trade secret misappropriation claims were filed, I-View further alleges that Police Priority’s founder, Clayton Kemp, used the knowledge gained from using I-View’s cloud-based software architecture technology in his capacity as President of Universal Monitoring immediately prior to founding Police Priority to develop Police Priority’s flagship CAST product. (see Complaint, ¶6). In particular, I-View points to the Central Station Agreement for Hosted Video Verification Kemp entered into with I-View on behalf of Universal Monitoring that granted Kemp access to and usage of I-View’s patented cloud-based software architecture that I-View alleges Police Priority’s CAST technology infringes. Interestingly, while it is unclear if Kemp has since left his role as President of Police Priority, he is currently the President and CTO of Global Guardian, another security solutions company. In addition to a permanent injunction against Police Priority’s alleged infringing conduct, I-View seeks monetary damages and a judgment that this case is exceptional due to Police Priority’s alleged willful infringement thereby entitling I-View to enhanced damages. (see Complaint’s Prayer for Relief, ¶¶a-i).
While a year has passed since I-View filed its initial Complaint, litigation on the merits has yet to take place. As this is the only lawsuit, patent or otherwise, I-View has pursued as a plaintiff, it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. Of particular note, it appears that the single patent-in-suit in this case (the ‘090 patent) comprises the entirety of I-View’s issued patent portfolio. This case is yet another example of a cloud computing company risking its entire patent portfolio to ward off the competition, similar to Centripetal Networks’ patent fight against Cisco, and ScaleMP’s offensive against TidalScale.
[Updated March 28, 2019: This lawsuit concluded in February 2019 in an uncontested dismissal with prejudice. Each party was responsible for its own expenses.]