ADT Sued: Remote Monitoring Patent Lawsuit

Author: 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.

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 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 on Monitoring

Genetec Security Center 5.8 Tested on Mar 19, 2019
Genetec has released Version 5.8. This comes after a wait of more than a year that caused frustrations for many Genetec partners. Our previous...
Large US University End-User Video Surveillance Interview on Mar 18, 2019
Schools have become targets in modern days of active shooters and terrorist fears. The need for video and access security is high. Universities...
City Physical Security Manager Interview on Mar 14, 2019
This physical security pro is the Physical Security Manager for the City of Calgary. He is a criminologist by training with an ASIS CPP credential....
Church Technology Director Security Interview on Mar 07, 2019
With 40+ years of experience in IT from a wide array of verticals, including US and foreign military, and large corporate and industrial settings,...
Verified Response Discontinued in Silicon Valley San Jose on Feb 28, 2019
Almost all security alarms are false. This has driven some municipalities to require verified response before dispatching police. However, now San...
Police Department Surveillance Manager Interview on Feb 28, 2019
Former Memphis PD Surveillance Manager, Lt. Joseph Patty retired months ago, but kept busy during his decades on the force, working to build up...
Salient CompleteView 20/20 VMS Tested on Feb 27, 2019
In IPVM's last test of Salient 3 years ago, we found various problems and deficiencies. Now, Salient says their new CompleteView 20/20 "unified...
Private School IT Manager Surveillance Interview on Feb 22, 2019
This IT manager describes himself as the "oft-maligned IT person" whose "opinions may not always be appreciated by the integrator crowd." But he is...
BluB0x Company Profile on Feb 20, 2019
BluB0x has doubled in revenue every year since its founding in 2013, according to CEO Patrick Barry. We originally reported on them in 2015. At the...
Solink Raises $12 Million - Company Profile on Feb 12, 2019
Most industry professionals have never heard of Solink, a company whose tagline is: It's time to revolutionize the way business uses...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Silicon Valley Cybersecurity Insurance Startup Coalition Profile on Mar 20, 2019
Many industry people believe cybersecurity insurance is not worth it, as the voting and debate in our Cybersecurity Insurance For Security...
Covert IP Camera Shootout - Axis, Hanwha, Hikvision, March, Vivotek on Mar 20, 2019
Covert cameras were one of the last holdout areas for analog cameras. However, in the past few years, IP / HD covert cameras have become...
Top Metrics For Ensuring Integrator Profitability - Statistics on Mar 20, 2019
How do integrators ensure the profitability of their projects? As part of our profitability study, 100+ integrators answered the following...
Avigilon Launches 'Renewed Products Program' on Mar 19, 2019
There are lots of 'pre-owned' cars but pre-owned IP cameras? While such programs are common in other industries, in video surveillance, they are...
Hanwha Tax Evasion Probe, Camera Division Implicated on Mar 19, 2019
A Hanwha group subsidiary was raided as part of a tax evasion probe. While a Korean news media report listed the raided entity as 'Hanwha...
Genetec Security Center 5.8 Tested on Mar 19, 2019
Genetec has released Version 5.8. This comes after a wait of more than a year that caused frustrations for many Genetec partners. Our previous...
Retired Mercury President Returns As Open Options President on Mar 18, 2019
Open Options experienced major changes in 2018, including being acquired by ACRE and losing its President and General Manager, John Berman who...
Large US University End-User Video Surveillance Interview on Mar 18, 2019
Schools have become targets in modern days of active shooters and terrorist fears. The need for video and access security is high. Universities...
Hikvision Favorability Results 2019 on Mar 18, 2019
Hikvision favorability results declined significantly in IPVM's 2019 study of 200+ integrators. While in 2017 Hikvision's favorability was...
ONVIF Favorability Results 2019 on Mar 15, 2019
In the past decade, ONVIF has grown from a reaction to the outside Cisco-lead PSIA challenge, to being the de facto video surveillance standard...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact