Axis, Sony, Cisco, 11 More Sued

By Carlton Purvis, Published Mar 13, 2013, 12:00am EDT (Info+)

Patent lawsuits continue to gain momentum throughout the world and in the surveillance industry. Though most of its suits were dismissed last fall, Puerto Rico-based Canatelo [link no longer available], LCC is back in court again suing more than a dozen surveillance manufacturers for patent infringement. Here's a look at who Canatelo really is, what their new suits are about and an update on the ones still in court. 

New Suits 

** ***** ********,************* ********** ******* ** *********, ********* Axis **************, *******, *****, ***** *******, TrendNet *** **** ******** *** ********* ripped *** *** ****** ********* ************. For *******, *** ************ ******* ****. *** ********** **** ******* ******. 

********’* ********** *** *** ********* ******* a ****** ** “********* ****** ** a ***** ******; *********** * ******* of *** ***** ****** **** ******** the ******** ******;*** ************ *** ********** ******* ** the ***** ****** **** ******** *** detected ****** ** **** ** ** e-mail.”

The *******

*** ***** ****** ** ********, ***** in ****** **** ** ********* **** G. ******* ****,***** ****-********* *** *********, *** *** * computer-based ***** ******** ****** ******** ** capture ****** ********* *** **** ****** via *****, ****** ** *****. ** included * ******* **** ***** ***** users ** ************* ********. *** ****** *** ****** in ******** **** (*.*. ****** ****** *,***,***).

** ******* **** *** ********* ***** a ****** ****** *** ******** ********** that ***** **** ********** ***** ******* for *********** ** ****** *** ******** those ****** ******* * ******* **********. That ****** *** ******** ** ******** 2007 (*.*. ****** ****** *,***,***)

***********, ** * ************ ******* ******* motion *** **** ********** *****, ** violates********'*******, ** ******* * **** **** ****

*** **********

********, ***, ******** ******* **** ******* ******, ***, ** * “********** ******** ***********” based **** ******* ** *** ****, according ** ********* ***** **** ********* **** ***** **********. ****'* ** *******:

********** ** ***** ** ***** ********* ** * **** ** * **-**** condo ** *** ***** -- ********** ***** Del ******* -- *******, * ************ at *** ******* **** ******** ****'* *****. 

"** **** * ****, ****, **** on *** ********** *****, *** ** unit **," *** ****. 

******** ******** **** *** *** ******* through *** ******* **** *** **** ********. 

******* ***** ***** ****** *********** ***** the ******* ********* ******, (*** ****** name ********.*** *** ******* *** ****** prior ** *** ***** ********** **************** ******* ******)*********** **** **** ****** ** *** courts.  

Update ** *** ***** 

** ****,********************,*********,*******, ***/**********, *************** *** ********* ********* ** * patent ** ****** ********* **********. ** sued ****** *** *** ******** *** “infringing” *******.

*** *** *** ** *** ***** were********* "**** *********"** *** ****. **** **** ** dismissal ******* ***** * ********* ****** to ******* *** ****** **** ******** and **** * ********* ***'* **-**** the ****. ** ** ***** *** of *** *****, ** *********** ********** was ******** ** *** *********. 

 “*** ****** ******* *** ****. *** lawsuit *** ********* ** * ****** of *** ********** *********,” *** *** word ******************, *** ***** *** ******** *** details ** *** *********.  

**** ***** -********,******

*** ***** **** ****** **** ***********’* **** ***************(***** ** ******* **** ***** ** the **** **** ** ************** ******* *** ** ***** *********) and *** **** *************(***** *** **** **** ** ** motions ** ****/********* ***** ** *** case ** *******). 

**************** ** ******* ** ******* **********, but ** ******* ** ********** **** **** *********,************ ** *** *** **** ***** the ******* ****************** * ********* ** ** "***** not **** ********* ** ****** ** cause ******* **** ** ******** *** patents." 

IPVM ********

** ******************* **** * **** **** *******. Their *****, ********* **********, ****** *** filed ** ******* ****, ****** **** compared ** *** *********** ** ***** IP *******. ********, ***************** *** ****** ******* **** ** can **** ** ***, ****** ***********, they *** *** ** **** ** fund *** *****-******* ****** ***** ******** necessary ** **** * *******.

Comments (2)

Sounds like just another case of patent trolling...

Our patent system is sooo broken. It needs to die in a fire.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports