Milestone Sues Hawk

Given that Hawk seems to be suing a wide array of companies / products / systems, I am not sure if that's a major factor in their lawsuit selection process.

Btw, from what I have seen from other large manufacturers is that they are less likely to want to litigate over small things like this, simply because the cost of litigation is more than the (likely) modest payment they would make to have this go away.

Jeremiah, thanks for raising it. It does appear that many of the end users were found from case studies :(

It depends on how wide known, how impactful these suits become if it has a chilling effect on case studies.

This could wipe out Case Studies, PR write-ups, news articles...

Bad news for those in the Puffery Profession!

Mark, ultimately, to make it stop completely, the patent would need to be invalidated.

Btw, I don't think giving themselves a black eye in the industry is, in any way, a concern for them :)

...their shortest path to a payoff is in hoping for some settlements in lieu of lengthy, expensive litigation

Or in fiscal preparation of long, expensive litigation. As in: Win a few small cases, build a war-chest, then go after the big ones.

that they have no interest in becoming an industry player and just want to profit from litigation...

That's true, but how would they go about it, at this point at least? If they just used 'their' multi-streaming, without suing, now they be so far behind everyone and not have anything different to offer...

The real 'bluff' would be if all the defendants were to negotiate a deal where they would agree to stop infringing on Hawk ASAP (without paying anything), and in return Hawk would drop all claims. Then theoretically Hawk would be the only one with multi-streaming, and could then develop a product that would have at least some advantage over everyone else. But they can't start to be a player (even if they wanted to) until they get money or get everyone to stop using multi-streaming.

As for the 'inventor', I don't think he was from the security industry, more from IT. But as has been pointed out the surveillence industry was nothing like it is today in terms of tech. This is 1995, before the marriage of cctv and ip, and I wonder if anyone on this site would have been familiar with even single streaming back then...

Alastair, that brings up an interesting point. Although the statute of limitations in patent infringement gives the owner 6 years after the date of the violation to file, there is also the doctrine of laches to consider. From uslegal.com

Laches is the legal doctrine that an unreasonable delay in seeking a remedy for a legal right or claim will prevent it from being enforced or allowed if the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. The doctrine is an equitable defense that seeks to prevent "legal ambush" from a party who is negligent in failing to timely make a claim. It recognizes that the opposing party's ability to obtain witnesses and other evidence diminishes over time, due to unavailability, fading memory, or loss. Disallowing the negligent party's action on the ground of laches is a form of estoppel.

It would seem the the big VMSes could appeal to this doctrine, among other defenses. That would also be another reason to target the end-user, because they presumably would not have been infringing as long, and also because they would be harder to identify as infringers. That would limit the applicability of laches as a defense.

Though by suing the end-user Hawk is still eyeing the mfr. since, I would guess that Hawk would like nothing more than to settle with the manufacturer in one-shot, in return for not pursuing its customers. Here is an article from ipwatchdog.com, regarding how the statute of limitations and doctrine of laches apply in patent law...