United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
EVICAM INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ENFORCEMENT VIDEO, LLC d/b/a WATCHGUARD VIDEO
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Enforcement Video, LLC d/b/a WatchGuard
Video's (“WatchGuard”) Motion for Summary
Judgment Against the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,
950, 013 (Dkt. #69). After considering the relevant
pleadings, the Court denies WatchGuard's motion.
International, Inc. (“Evicam”) filed its
complaint against WatchGuard, alleging patent infringement of
U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 211, 907 and 6, 950, 013 (the
“'013 Patent”). For the '013 Patent,
Evicam asserts Claims 8 and 11 (the “Asserted
Claims”), both of which indirectly depend on Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A system for producing an integrated database of data
generated from a remote vehicle incident recording system
a) at least one video camera for generating video signals of
the incident proximate the vehicle;
b) a recording device for capturing said video signals as
c) an interface permitting input of an authorization code for
accessing said data captured by said recording device, the
captured data being inaccessible without the authorization
code thereby securely maintaining the captured data as
evidence of the incident; and
d) an information datalink for accessing data captured by
said recording device;
e) a transfer device coupled at least indirectly to said
information datalink, the transfer device adapted to securely
receiver data from said remote vehicle incident recording
f) means for generating an integrated, indexed database of
data from said remove vehicle incident recording system
wherein said means is coupled at least indirectly to said
'013 at 13:34-55. Claim 8 includes the limitations
recited in Claim 1 along with “means for generating
vehicle information in conjunction with said video signals
for storage on said recording device as data, ” and
such data “comprises vehicle dynamic
information.” Id. at 13:63- 65, 14:7-8. Claim
11 includes the device of Claim 1 “wherein said
information data link includes a download trigger for
initiating downloading of information from said recording
device” and “said download trigger is adapted to
respond to the occurrence of a predetermined event.”
Id. at 14:9-14.
February 10, 2017, WatchGuard filed the present motion (Dkt.
#69). On March 24, 2017, Evicam filed its response (Dkt.
#110). On April 3, 2017, WatchGuard filed a reply (Dkt.
#116). On April 10, 2017, Evicam filed a sur-reply (Dkt.