If they are smart, Wyze will let their lawyers do all the talking. Otherwise it will be business as usual. If Wyze doesn’t end up on top in the lawsuit, we will probably see a price increase of a few dollars per camera.
I suspect you’re right. My prediction is that Johnson Controls has sent letters everyone making cloud based security cameras and their end game is to get a couple of buck per unit royalty when it’s all said and done.
Hopefully they have an experienced patent law attorney in their corner.
Having been on the receiving end of a very similar situation, my experience was that the companies that settled earliest got the worst deal.
I need to go read the Johnson Control’s patent, but my guess is that it wouldn’t be hard to establish that prior art existed before they filled. These sorts of cloud security systems were discussed even before we were calling it “the cloud”. There is a strong assumption that the grantee of a patent was the first inventor once they have a patent in hand, but that assumption can be overcome with good historical documentation.
Generally the companies that stave off settling in these situations do the best since the patent holder knows their position is weak and at some point they realize that something is better than nothing and they are somewhat satiated by the parties that settled early.
Incidentally, the patent system in the U.S. is pretty broken at the moment. Early in my career I routinely had patents rejected because the examiner asserted that my invention was “obvious to one skilled in the art” (and he was generally right about this). Some time in the mid to late 90’s that went away. There was no change in patent law, it was just that the quality of examiner seemed to decline and they were so overwhelmed by the sheer volume of patents being filed. Basically, it has gotten to the point where you can get a patent on anything that doesn’t already have an existing patent no matter how ridiculously trivial or obvious your invention is. Those types of patents can be defeated after they are granted, but it costs time and money when they should have never been granted in the first place.
The support is fantastic. Wyze does not need to hire attorneys. Better to just turn over this thread to the powers-that-be with all the expwert opinions. It feels great being associated with such a fine company deserving of such loyal patrons.
Sensormatic was on the recieving end once regarding CCCTVs —Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp. , 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The district court erred in its construction of “receiving means” as being limited to a “monitor” based on statements made by the inventor to the PTO during prosecution of the '085 patent. We agree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to the RS-422 and SensorNet systems, but we disagree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to the Intellix IP systems. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is
*1376 COTE, District Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe that when the prosecution history and the patent are considered together, the evidence is clear and unambiguous that Elbex’s reference to a “monitor” in its response to the PTO Office Action was a strategic choice and an unmistakable surrender of claim scope. Elbex made significant revisions to Claim 1 in what became the '085 patent in order to obtain the patent, and is now trying to recapture what it chose to abandon in the proceedings before the PTO. I would affirm.
These Patents are sometimes way too vague.
I wonder if fogcam is old enough for prior art. It was running since 1994.
I’d bet that a decent portion of it is prior art.
Very sad to see it go after its 25 year long run.
Is $200 really going to make you go broke?
Not sure to whom you are replying?
The good thing about our system is that the small company can counter Sue for their losses
I can see Amazon acquiring Wyze and fighting. I just hope Google and Nest stay away as they destroyed their NestCam product and turned it into crap.
Amazon already owns two smart home IOT companies. Ring and Blink. With Ring, they have everything that Wyze offers and more. Plus they have already built Ring into a national surveillance state where they can sell data to Law Enforcement.
If the patents are ‘updates’ of the original (just to extend the patents usually), then they need to prove that Wyze was NOT already using the product/patent/technology prior to that Feb. 2019 date. Don’t know about you, but I have had my camera for much longer.
Re the Elbex Video case, It would be interesting to know how often US District courts grant summary judgment in patent cases. Back in the day, successful Rule 56 motions were generally rare. As others have written here, the patent system in the US is substantially broken. My impression is that’s mostly due to the permissive approach of the PTO, but I’m no expert and it’s possible that PTO examiners are responding to what has been happening in the courts over the last few decades. In the meantime, I think everything Wyze has done up to now has earned the loyalty of its customers, and that if it comes to it Wyze shouldn’t hesitate to call on us for help in whatever ways their legal team thinks will be most effective.
Never heard of Johnson Controls and now have no need to.
They are a Milwaukee based company. Their primary business is selling HVAC systems for entire large buildings and also personal controls at the workstation level to businesses.
your evaluation of the company and management … is your evaluation…and your opinion… both of which I question your criteria and skill level…
It’s interesting that this is your first post
Yes, it is an opinion and you are surely entitled to your , own opinion
You did mean Wyze and not Waze, the map/driving app, right?
This is a common practice for many big companies. When they see a technology they want because they can charge a premium (Think MyFitnessPal now owned by Under Armor) I’ll bet Wyze was “offered” a buyout by JC and turned down. The next step is suing them, winning and thus gaining control of the company. In the end the big guys get what they want and those that supported and believe in the company (Wyze) and their entrepreneurial employees get screwed. I don;t see this ending well for the Wyze employee’s and customers.
IANAL, I don’t think that’s true of patents. I think you’re thinking of trademarks, which one must defend or lose. Copyrights and patents can be defended or not depending on the whim of the holders.