Pelco Sued by ObjectVideo
The lawsuits keep coming. Now ObjectVideo is suing former, long time partner Pelco. Done quietly after business hours on a Friday afternoon, ObjectVideo issued a two paragraph release announcing the attack.
ObjectVideo suing is no surprise, given their ongoing international battle with Bosch and Samsung. However, suing Pelco may not have been expected. For many years, the two companies have partnered with Pelco OEMing and promoting the use of ObjectVideo in their Sarix line, including happy press releases.
Background Pelco / OV
Unfortunately, the relationship has deteriorated over the years, primarily because it appears that ObjectVideo failed in developing and supporting their analytics. For instance, two years ago, we reviewed how Pelco reps claimed virtually no interest in the OV add-on. Later we noted that when we attempted to do a test of Pelco cameras with OV analytics, no one at Pelco could help and OV refused to help, claiming that support of their software was Pelco's responsibility, not theirs. Since then, Pelco has heavily promoted their own video analytics which they give away for free.
The Complaint
The complaint mirrors OV's first lawsuit with an important new element. The core argument remains the same. ObjectVideo accuses Pelco of violating four of its patents. However, we notice one ominous element missing from the complaint in the first lawsuit. Specifically, the role and liability of end users is cited:
"Pelco indirectly infringes at least [certain claims of OV's patents] by instructing its end user customers to connect the accused Pelco camera products to a personal computer ... As directed by Pelco, the end users of the accused Pelco camera products directly infringe on [OV's patent] by using the combined system, making Pelco a contributory infringer and an inducer of infringement." [emphasis added]
It will be interesting to see how this approach plays out and why ObjectVideo is emphasizing the role and infringement of the end user.
Read the full complaint ObjectVideo filed against Pelco (IPVM Pro Member's Only).
The Future
However, the timing of the complaint is surprising. Even OV has repeatedly remarked that the point of the US ITC investigation was to push a resolution quickly. Starting a new case in US district court could take years to conclude and cost them a significant amount of money. Why now simply wait for the US ITC case to conclude and then negotiate from a stronger position with Pelco? It is hard for us to tell if this is a brilliant move to expand the fight on more fronts or a desperation move to scare far larger companies into submission.
For more on the recent OV legal battles, see:
Author: John Honovich, Published on May 14, 2012
Other Updates on ObjectVideo
Samsung Beats ObjectVideo on Jul 21, 2012
After a year of international litigation, ObjectVideo has withdrawn its complaint against Samsung...
The Crazy ObjectVideo CEO Interview on May 06, 2012
The last we heard from ObjectVideo, they boldly proclaimed manufacturers had only '60 days or els...
Are ObjectVideo's Patents Going to Be Invalidated? on Apr 18, 2012
Publicly, the last few months have been outstanding for ObjectVideo - with Sony capitulating ...
You Have 60 Days ... Or Else on Mar 23, 2012
Gangster capitalism reigns. Exactly one year after ObjectVideo launched lawsuits against 3 of the...
OV Patent Infringement Claims on Feb 09, 2012
In this note, we review the key patents cited by ObjectVideo in their litigation against Bosch, S...
Sony Folds to OV Lawsuit on Feb 08, 2012
Bad news for the overall industry and perhaps the best news for ObjectVideo since their global li...
AD to Pay Patent "Protection Money" to OV on Feb 02, 2012
ObjectVideo has signed a global patent licensing agreement with American Dynamics. This falls in ...
Samsung Slaps ObjectVideo on Feb 01, 2012
The video analytic legal fight is heating up. Now, approaching a year of litigation with no end i...
When Will the ObjectVideo Lawsuits End? on Dec 08, 2011
Now almost 8 months since Object Video first launched their video analytics litigation campaign, ...
Most Recent Industry Updates
Proximity Credentials Tutorial on May 21, 2013
One of the most common credentials is also the most confusing. How exactly do proximity cards 're...
Failed Manufacturer Enters Surveillance on May 20, 2013
Polaroid is one of the most spectacular failures of the century and has become, quite literally, ...
A Solid Proposal For a City on a Budget on May 17, 2013
It is far too common to find RFPs and proposals with missing details, inadequate equipment, and o...
Stop Saying 'It Depends on the Application' on May 16, 2013
"It depends on the application" has to be the worst saying in the industry. It conveys no inform...
Deadly Pushbuttons on May 16, 2013
A simple and common misunderstanding in specifying pushbuttons can kill people trying to escape b...
Vicon Steep Revenue Decline on May 16, 2013
We have been following Vicon's slow, downward spiral since 2009 and the company's struggles conti...
Special Webinar - Calculating Bandwidth / Storage on May 16, 2013
The most common technical request we hear from our members is how to properly calculate bandwidth...
Crappy Cameras Trigger City Surveillance Shutdown on May 15, 2013
An Australian city has shut off its surveillance system after being ordered to determine how to o...
MicroPower 2.0 Solar Wireless Surveillance on May 14, 2013
When we first looked at MicroPower's solar surveillance system in 2010, key limitations existed, ...
Bug Eye Camera Reviewed on May 14, 2013
In the past month, the so called 'bug eye' camera has captured popular attention around the world...