Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Evicam International, Inc. v. Enforcement Video, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

June 5, 2017

EVICAM INTERNATIONAL, INC.
v.
ENFORCEMENT VIDEO, LLC d/b/a WATCHGUARD VIDEO

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Evicam 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 comprising:
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 data;
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 system; and
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 transfer device.

'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.

         On 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. #122).

         LEGAL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.