Complaint *****
** ****** **, ****, JCI, ***** *** '***********' business,***** **** ** ******** with * **-**** *********:
JCI / *********** / ******** ********
*** **** ** ***** on ******* ******** ** Smartvue (****************** ******, *** *******). ** 2018,******** *** ******** ** JCI / ****, ****** *********** / legally **** ** ***** part ** **********, * company **** (*** ****** was ***** ******** ** JCI) *********** ** ****. *** ********* ********:
Violations *******
*** ** **. ***** that **** ** ********* 7 ** ***** *******:
*** ***** *** **** fundamental ****** ***** ** the ****"******** ***** ************ ****** and ****** **** ****** viewing", ****** ****** *,***,***.
**** ***** * ******** surveillance ****** **** ****** viewing.
**** ******'* **** ***** is:
* ****** *** ****** viewing ** ****** ** a ************ ****** ****** communication ******* ** ***** one ******** ***** ******* device ***(*) *** * corresponding ******* ***** ******** (DIR) ** ******* ***, together ******* * **** system
** *** *********, *** makes * **** ** how **** ******'* ****** map ** **** **** is *****, ******** ****:
**** **** ******* * reference ** **** *** sensors ******** **** **** infringes ** *** ******** claims:
Why *** * *******
*** ******* ****** ** that *** ******** **** is ********** ** ***** patent. *** *** / Sensormatic / **** **** not **** * ******* of ***** *** ****** infringement **** *** ****** of ** ***** *******.
*** **** ***** ****** wonder *** * ~*-****-*** company ***** ** ***** the **** ** ****** to ***.
*******, **** ** ******* extremely ******* *** **** are ** * **** to ****** *** ** the *******, ** *** biggest, ** ******, ******** IP ****** ************* ** the ****** ******. *** example, **** ******* ** ship * ******* ***** from ******* **** ** October ****. ********,** ****** ******* **** 2 ******* ****** ** Wyze ************** ** *** **** year ** ****** **, 2019.
****'* ******* * ******* cameras, ***** ***** ******** weight ** ~*/* *****.
*** **** ** ***** low ~$** ***** ******, that ******** ** $** - $*** ******* **** revenue. ***** ****** ***** naturally **** ** **********, Wyze ***** **** ** a ~$*** ******* ****** revenue *******.
No ***** ***********
*** ****** ** **** JCI's ********* ******* ** prior ****** *** *********** was ***** ** ****, as *** ******* ***** states:
**** **** ** **** seen ** ******* ***** patent ***** **** *** years ** **** *** norm ** ** *** to ********* / ****** out ** ***** *****.
Risk *** ****
*** ******* **** *** Wyze ** *** *** royalties ***** ****** ***** business ***** ***** *******. Selling ******* ** *** ~$20 *****, ** ***** own *********, ****** **** to ******* ** **** smaller ******* **** ************ manufacturers. * ************ $* patent ******* *** * manufacturer ******* $*** ******* is *** * *********** impact *** *** * $20 ****** ********, ** could **. ********, ***** the ***** ***** ** units **** ** *******, the ********* ****** *** JCI ***** ** ********, though, ***** ***'* *****-******* scale, ** ***** ***** not ** ******** ******* for ****.
** *** **** *****, Wyze **** *** **** to ******** ** **** with * ******* **** a ******** *********** **** has *** ***** ***** and ***** ** **** litigation **** *** ** costly *** *********** *** a ****-******* *******.
** *** ***** ****, Wyze *** ****** *** this ** *********** **** they **** ******* *** become ***** *** **** and ********* ** ***** incumbents ** *** *****.
Comments (32)
John Tran
Doesn't this apply to every home monitoring camera?
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Watch out Amazon Ring / Nest etc....
I was running cameras on wireless in 2008 with remote access and wireless sensors. So could the patent be thrown out? :s
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Its probably going to be thrown out. Wireless cameras are so common, it’s “public domain” now. They’d have to sue hik and dahua and more. Seems like a shake down similar to that stupid law firm in east Texas that sued anyone with security cameras.
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Then they might as well shake down deep sentinel since bezos is tied to it 😂
Create New Topic
Randy Lines
We could make a better product for "X" dollars or we can sue them out of existence for "Y" dollars.
rbl
Create New Topic
Undisclosed #4
well, this quite a change from the tiny troll going after the fat cats: Doomsday Prepper Sues Avigilon, Dahua, Hikvision.
this is more like “man sues dog”
Create New Topic
Undisclosed
I thought they finally killed Sensormatic and the furball of corporate entities when JCI acquired Tyco.
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Manufacturer #7
Wyze crossed JCI's line by competing with their DSC intrusion products. JCI simply cannot compete with $20 sensors and can't innovate video into their intrusion products fast or cheap enough. JCI is too big to care about modest licensing revenue; it's about protecting their DSC business.
JCI is bigger, but Wyze is fighting for survival. Wyze VC's can kick in a couple $M to mount a patent invalidation campaign and JCI execs will eventually push to settle it when they get tired of documenting/explaining it in every quarterly report.
JCI is playing whack-a-mole with the huge number of manufacturers who have "at least two wireless input control devices". They're fighting a fundamental problem that lawyers can't solve - as DIY product features and ease of install improve, more people don't need an expensive installer channel solution using JCI's product. Suing the little guys over a 2004 patent will force them to further innovate... and patent it to lock JCI out.
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Manufacturer #8
This is an interesting case. Yes, I believe that JCI is trying to squash Wyze. It is what people do to gain or protect market share. I also believe that JCI is trying to set a precedence. Can they convert this patient from 2004 to a precedence 15 years later? Since precedence is what the courts use to determine the outcome for litigation this would protect them in the future. A lot has changed in the wireless marketplace since 2004 and much of what JCI is holding with its patient is mainstream technology today but was unique in 2004. I was part of a similar case in the late 90's and as the defendant the judge found that the patient held by the plaintiff did not hold up because the design was not determined to be unique. So it will be interesting to see if a patient from 15 years ago will stand up if that technology has become mainstream and an industry standard in its space. Since no precedence has been set it will be very interesting to see how this turns out. I like Wyze's chances.
Create New Topic
John Honovich
Wyze was granted an extension to respond until October 9th.
We will keep on tracking the progress of the case.
Create New Topic