On June 27, 2012, ObjectVideo, Inc. of Reston, Virginia (“ObjectVideo”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that Pelco, Inc. of Clovis, California (“Pelco”) unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, and/or sells within the U.S. after importation certain video analytics software, systems, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,696,945 (the ‘945 patent), 6,970,083 (the ‘083 patent), 7,868,912 (the ‘912 patent), and 7,932,923 (the ‘923 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).
According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to video analytics software and systems. In particular, the ‘912 and ‘923 patents relate to the way in which information is extracted from video for use in later applications for video analysis or detection of events in the video. The ‘945 and ‘083 patents relate to more specific video analysis techniques, including, e.g., techniques related to detecting a particular event or action in the video.
In the complaint, ObjectVideo states that Pelco imports and sells products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically names Pelco cameras having Pelco Video Analytics software and capabilities—including various Pelco Sarix model cameras—as infringing products.
Regarding domestic industry, ObjectVideo states that a domestic industry exists based on ObjectVideo’s licensing program for the asserted patents. In particular, ObjectVideo states that it maintains an in-house licensing capability that implements all critical licensing functions for its intellectual property. ObjectVideo further states that it employs a staff that includes three attorneys who provide legal support in connection with the licensing and enforcement of ObjectVideo’s intellectual property, including the asserted patents. In addition, ObjectVideo states that a domestic industry exists based on ObjectVideo’s own use of the asserted patents. In particular, ObjectVideo states that it engages in the manufacturing and sale of video analytics systems that practice the asserted patents and that are used in a variety of applications, including security, public safety, business intelligence, and process improvement. According to the complaint, ObjectVideo designs these products—including its OnBoard, FAST, and VEW products—at its facilities in Reston, Virginia, and the products are incorporated into the security systems of many companies and institutions, including Boston University and The Kroger Co.
As to related litigation, ObjectVideo states that on April 6, 2011, it filed a complaint against Robert Bosch GmbH and Bosch Security Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Bosch”), Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd. and Samsung Opto-Electronics America, Inc. (d/b/a Samsung Techwin America, Inc.) (collectively, “Samsung”), and Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “Sony”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In that complaint, ObjectVideo alleged infringement of, inter alia, the ‘945, ‘083, and ‘912 patents. The ‘923 patent was added to the litigation through an amended complaint filed on May 11, 2011. ObjectVideo additionally states that on June 29, 2011, it filed an ITC complaint against Bosch, Samsung, and Sony alleging a violation of Section 337 in connection with the infringement of, inter alia, the ‘945, ‘083, ‘912, and ‘923 patents. See our July 5, 2011 post for more details. The ITC instituted an investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-795) based on ObjectVideo’s complaint on July 27, 2011. See our August 1, 2011 post for more details. ObjectVideo further states that on February 29, 2012, Bosch Security Systems, Inc. filed requests for inter partes reexamination of the ‘912, ‘923, ‘945, and ‘083 patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Lastly, ObjectVideo states that on May 11, 2012, it filed a complaint against Pelco in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging infringement of the ‘945, ‘083, ‘912, and ‘923 patents.
With respect to potential remedy, ObjectVideo requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at Pelco and its successors and assigns.