City And Stadium Sued For Infringing Digital Video Streaming And Monitoring Patent

On Tuesday in the Southern District of Alabama, plaintiff Hawk Technology Systems, LLC, a digital video monitoring system company, filed a complaint for patent infringement against defendants the City of Mobile, Ala., and Ladd-Peebles Stadium, claiming that the defendants infringed the patent-in-suit over their alleged use of a surveillance system that allowed them to digitally stream and monitor the video images on a remote device, as described in the plaintiff’s patent-in-suit.

The patent-in-suit is United States Patent No. 10,499,091 (the ’091 Patent), entitled “High Quality, Reduced Data Rate Streaming Video Production And Monitoring System.” For example, claim 1 of the ’091 patent states, “[a] method of viewing, on a remote viewing device of a video surveillance system, multiple simultaneously displayed and stored video images, comprising the steps of: receiving video images at a personal computer based system from a plurality of video sources… displaying one or more of the digitized images in separate windows on a personal computer…converting one or more of the video source images into a selected video format…contemporaneously storing at least a subset of the converted images in a storage device in a network environment; providing a communications link to allow an external viewing device to access the storage device; receiving…a request to receive one or more specific streams of the video images; transmitting either directly from one or more of the plurality of video sources from the storage device over the communication link to the remote viewing device…displaying only the one or more requested specific streams of the video images on the remote computing device.” Moreover, in a similar manner to claim 1, claim 6 of the patent also describes a method of viewing on a remote device for a video surveillance system. According to the complaint, these patented claims “teach methods for generating, transmitting, receiving, and viewing high-quality video-including on a remote device such as a smartphone with the innovation of  significantly reducing the data-transmission burden.”

Hawk Technology averred that the defendants infringed at least claims 1 and 6 of the ’091 patent through its purported use of its security camera and surveillance system, which allegedly allowed a user to view multiple video images on the same screen at one time. According to the claim chart, these can be transmitted and stored on a cloud and subsequently watched on a remote device. Consequently, Hawk Technology asserted that this infringed the patent-in-suit because it allegedly utilized the plaintiff’s patented method.

The plaintiff has sought declaratory judgment in its favor, for the defendants to be permanently restrained for further infringement, an award for damages, an award for costs and fees, and other relief.

Hawk Technology is represented by Henderson Dantone, P.A.