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

JCI Sues Genetec For Patent Infringement on Jul 13, 2020
Surprisingly, security giant JCI has sued their partner, security software...
Anixter Runs Fake Coronavirus Marketing Using Shutterstock Watermarked Images on Jul 24, 2020
Coronavirus faked marketing is regrettably commonplace right now but Anixter...
Vape Detection Legal Battle: Soter Sues IPVideo Corp on Jul 22, 2020
The crosstown vape detection rivals are now in a legal battle. While IPVideo...
Milestone Presents XProtect On AWS on May 04, 2020
Milestone presented its XProtect on AWS offering at the April 2020 IPVM New...
Dahua, Hikvision, ZKTeco Face Mask Detection Shootout on Jun 19, 2020
Temperature tablets with face mask detection are one of the hottest trends in...
Sunell "Panda Cam" Thermal Body Temperature System Examined on Apr 09, 2020
Sunell's Panda Cam is the most visually recognizable coronavirus camera, sold...
The China Company (Bems) Behind a Dozen+ Western Temperature Tablets on Jul 22, 2020
While you have likely seen marketing for various temperature tablets, you...
The Next Hot Fever Detection Trend - $100 Wall-Mounted Units on Jul 06, 2020
The first wave of the booming fever detecting market was $10,000+ cameras,...
"He Is An Idiot!" Exclaims SIA Director John Mack on Mar 23, 2020
Here is another inside look into the "leaders" of the security industry. SIA...
Verkada Falsely Claims "First Native Cloud-based Access Control and Video Security Solution" on Jun 18, 2020
Verkada's false claims continue, this time to be the first native cloud-based...
NetApp Presents Hybrid Cloud Video Archive on May 11, 2020
NetApp presented its hybrid S3 cloud video archive at the April 2020 IPVM New...
Convergint Refuses To Fix Faked Fever Marketing, FTC Complaint Filed on Jun 19, 2020
Since Convergint has refused to fix their faked fever camera marketing, IPVM...
Hikvision Global News Reports Directory on Jun 18, 2020
Hikvision has received the most global news reporting of any video...
Faked Convergint Fever Camera 'Expert' Marketing on Jun 16, 2020
Convergint touts they are "THERMAL CAMERA SOLUTION EXPERTS" while faking...
Beware Of Feevr on Apr 14, 2020
Beware of "Feevr". The company is marketing a 'Feevr' solution that...

Recent Reports

Genetec CEO Declares "We Don't Negotiate Payment With Patent Trolls" on Aug 11, 2020
Are patent trolls like terrorists? Genetec's CEO is coming out strongly...
Hanwha AI Analytics Camera Tested on Aug 11, 2020
Hanwha has released their Wisenet P AI camera, adding person and vehicle...
Alabama Schools Million Dollar Hikvision Fever Camera Deal on Aug 11, 2020
The Baldwin County, Alabama public schools purchased a $1 million, 144-camera...
Dahua Taunts Australian Government, Continues To Sell Illegal Fever Cameras on Aug 10, 2020
Dahua is effectively taunting the Australian government by continuing to sell...
HID Releases VertX Replacement Aero on Aug 10, 2020
HID is replacing two established and broadly supported types of access...
NDAA Compliant Video Surveillance Whitelist on Aug 10, 2020
This report aggregates video surveillance products that manufacturers have...
Telpo China Temperature Tablets Tested on Aug 10, 2020
The provider for overseas companies ranging from Canon Singapore to US'...
Dangerous Hikvision Fever Camera Showcased by Chilean City on Aug 07, 2020
Deploying a fever camera outdoors, in the rain, with no black body, is...
"Grand Slam" For Pelco's PE Firm, A Risk For Motorola on Aug 07, 2020
The word "Pelco" and "grand slam" have not been said together for many years....
FLIR Stock Falls, Admits 'Decelerating' Demand For Temperature Screening on Aug 07, 2020
Is the boom going to bust for temperature screening? FLIR disappointed...
VSaaS Will Hurt Integrators on Aug 06, 2020
VSaaS will hurt integrators, there is no question about that. How much...
Dogs For Coronavirus Screening Examined on Aug 06, 2020
While thermal temperature screening is the surveillance industry's most...
ADT Slides Back, Disappointing Results, Poor Commercial Performance on Aug 06, 2020
While ADT had an incredible start to the week, driven by the Google...
AHJ / Authority Having Jurisdiction Tutorial on Aug 06, 2020
One of the most powerful yet often underappreciated characters in all...
SIA Coaches Sellers on NDAA 889B Blacklist Workarounds on Aug 05, 2020
Last month SIA demanded that NDAA 899B "must be delayed". Now that they have...