ADT Sued: Remote Monitoring Patent Lawsuit

By: John Honovich, Published on Apr 14, 2011

A powerful IP licensing firm has sued ADT and a number of remote monitoring providers for patent infringement. The firm, Walker Digital, claims that ADT and other surveillance companies violate their patent for an 'Internet Surveillance System' that they originally filed in 1998.

Walker Digital is a powerful force in patent enforcement. They are the company behind the Priceline patent and claimed to have generated over $200 million USD in patent licensing for their hundreds of patents. Walker Digital also recently filed suits against Google, Groupon, Facebook, etc. in cases unrelated to their surveillance patents.

Remote monitoring is widely viewed as one of the next big things. ADT is one of the leading promoters of this service. Remote monitoring holds the promise of reducing expenditures on guards and providing a surveillance service with strong, clearly demonstrated ROI. Interestingly, remote monitoring also greatly benefits from video analytics for generating alerts. Analytics themselves are under attack from patent lawsuits (review the OV analytics lawsuit campaign).

The case was filed this week and also names publicly traded Iveda Solutions and retail provider Westec, among others. We will continue to update as the lawsuit makes its way through the court system.

UPDATE May 4, 2011: In the comments section, two industry veterans make the case that significant prior art exists that should invalidate the Walker Digital patents. Read the comments for full details.

[premium_content]

Background

For details, we recommend reviewing the following:

The key claim made in the complaint is that these providers, including ADT, are 'making, using, importing, offering for sale and/or selling remote and Internet monitoring and surveillance products and services.' The complaint repeats this for each named defendant and for each patent cited.

The Patents

Looking at the 1998 patent, here are key clauses that might impact the surveillance industry:

  • Server use: Assumes the use of a central server: "a central server to manage remote monitoring tasks performed by users of a data network"; It's likely that all production remote monitoring services use a central server (or servers).
  • Payment required: Assumes payment for the service: the service "caus[es] a payment to be provided to the remote viewer, wherein the payment is in exchange for time the remote viewer spent viewing at least the image." This essentially eliminates all forms of self-monitoring. For example, if you have a VMS and are monitoring it from your home or phone, etc., this does not appear to be covered.
  • Self-Monitoring Excluded: Acknowledges that self-monitoring software existed before their patent application. They cite a few examples such as PriVID and Novex Canada. This is further indications that regular remote monitoring software is not threatened.
  • Key process: Here is the key process that they are claiming to have invented: "receiving a request from a user of a user device to monitor a remote location; determining a remote location to be monitored; enabling communication between a sensor at the remote location and the user device; and crediting value to the user for monitoring the remote location in accordance with an amount of time the user device has been in communication with the sensor for remote monitoring purposes." Most of this description describes today remote monitoring services very well.  One aspect that might be disputed is paying for an 'amount of time'. Many providers charge a flat rate per event. However, a court may judge that a flat rate falls under that meaning.
  • Public Monitoring application: An alternative "embodiment of the present invention is directed to a commerce-based system and method that enables members of the general public who have access to a data network such as the Internet to log on at any time and perform remote monitoring tasks for value." This would appear to directly target what InternetEyes is doing in the UK.

Initial Observations

A few observations from our initial review:

  • Traditional remote monitoring software and self-monitoring appear to be safe from this patent threat.
  • 'Regular' VSaaS providers are unlikely to be impacted as these companies generally provide no monitoring services. The provider stores and provides access but does not monitor or respond to particular events.
  • A number of fundamental remote monitoring processes are described in this process and could pose a threat to providers charging for remote monitoring.
  • The age of the patent (1998) is a cause for concern. That's fairly ancient in video surveillance terms and while there were certainly remote clients for DVRs whether any prior art exists of paid for remote monitoring services is questionable. Westec reports being founded in 1996 [link no longer available] so they may use this to prove 'prior art'.
  • Walker is a sophisticated company with a track record in pursuing patent infringement cases. They cannot be dismissed as a 'crazy' patent troll.
  • We do not think this will present any serious long term harm to remote monitoring. Worst case, the providers will pay a license or royalty. Only a few have generated significant revenue in the past (e.g. Westec) so any damages should be minimal for most. For new providers, the overall business model of remote monitoring is healthy enough that adding licenses should not be significant.

Related Reports

ADT Acquires Much Maligned "Defenders" on Jan 07, 2020
"The Defenders" has the dubious distinction of being ADT's largest partner and a long history of customer and employee complaints and...
TMA Apologizes to Amazon / Ring on Aug 23, 2019
Not only is Amazon / Ring making major incursions into the residential security market, the organization representing the biggest incumbents, The...
JCI Sues Wyze on Aug 21, 2019
The mega manufacturer / integrator JCI has sued the fast-growing $20 camera Seattle startup Wyze. Inside this note: Share the court...
Milestone "GDPR-ready" Certification Claim Critiqued on Aug 12, 2019
Milestone is touting that its latest XProtect VMS is "GDPR-ready" with a 'European Privacy Seal'. However, our investigation raises significant...
Cisco Settles False Claims Act Suit For Video Surveillance Vulnerabilities on Aug 01, 2019
Cisco entered the video surveillance market in 2007 and suffered for many years through a variety of its own errors and arrogance. The conclusion...
New GDPR Guidelines for Video Surveillance Examined on Jul 18, 2019
The highest-level EU data protection authority has issued a new series of provisional video surveillance guidelines. While GDPR has been in...
'CCTV' Is the Past, Cloud Video Surveillance Is the Future on Jul 08, 2019
A fundamental shift is happening. For decades, video surveillance was overwhelmingly 'closed' and off the Internet. This is changing. More and more...
First Video Surveillance GDPR Fine In France on Jul 08, 2019
The French government has imposed a sizeable fine on a small business for violating the GDPR after it constantly filmed employees without informing...
Risk of Amazon Alexa Guard: No Battery Or Cell Backup on Jun 20, 2019
Amazon positions its Alexa Guard Service as a "smart home security system" and says it can help you "keep your home safe". However, the...
Amazon Marketing Pro Installs of Amazon Security Systems on Apr 25, 2019
Is Amazon a threat to conventional providers like ADT, Vivint and Brinks Home Security? Many say no. Now, Amazon is advertising free in-home...

Most Recent Industry Reports

LIVE NOW "Fever Camera" Show on Jun 02, 2020
IPVM is excited for the world's first "Fever Camera" show, to be held today Tuesday, June 2nd and Wednesday the 3rd from 11am to 4pm EDT, giving...
Smart Entry Systems Presents Cloud Multi-Tenant Access Control on Jun 02, 2020
Smart Entry Systems presented Cloud Multi-Tenant Access Control at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video...
Genetec Drops Support for Dahua and Hikvision on Jun 01, 2020
Genetec has dropped support for Dahua and Hikvision, citing US blacklisting and ONVIF conformance blockage, the company informed partners in an...
Dotty "Hot Or Not" Elevated Body Temperature App Tested on Jun 01, 2020
What if you could take an existing phone or tablet and transform it into "fever camera"? That is what DottyAR is doing with their strangely named...
Optris "Fever Screening Systems" Examined on Jun 01, 2020
German manufacturer Optris has been building temperature measuring instruments for industrial manufacturing for over 15 years, and thermal cameras...
Fever Camera Sales From Integrators Surveyed on Jun 01, 2020
Fever cameras are the hottest trend in video surveillance currently but how much are integrators selling them? 220 integrators answered the...
Proxy Presents Mobile Credentials For BLE Devices and Access on May 29, 2020
Proxy presented Mobile Credentials For BLE Devices and Access at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video...
ISC West 2020 Moves To The Basement on May 29, 2020
The twice cancelled/postponed show will now not only be held in a different month (October) but on a different floor, moving down to the...
Integrators Avoiding Coronavirus Air Travel on May 29, 2020
IPVM asked integrators if air travel is part of their 2020 plans to see how significantly Coronavirus will impact future...
Viakoo Presents Cyber Hygiene for Cameras on May 28, 2020
Viakoo presented its 'Cyber Hygiene' and 'Service Assurance' products at the April 2020 IPVM New Products show. Inside this report: A...