Sensormatic Electronics, LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc.

S

Case: 20-2320 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2021 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WYZE LABS, INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2020-2320 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:19-cv-01543-CFC-SRF, Judge Colm F. Connolly. ______________________ Decided: July 14, 2021 ______________________ DAVID M. KRINSKY, Williams & Connolly LLP, Wash- ington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre- sented by ARTHUR JOHN ARGALL, III, SARAH M. HARRIS, CHARLES MCCLOUD. REUBEN HO-YEN CHEN, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, ar- gued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DEEPA KANNAPPAN, LAUREN KRICKL, LAM K. NGUYEN; ERIK BENTON MILCH, Reston, VA. ______________________ Case: 20-2320 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 07/14/2021 2 SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS, LLC v. WYZE LABS, INC. Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Sensormatic Electronics, LLC (“Sensormatic”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that the claims of U.S. Patents 7,730,534 (“’534 patent”); 7,936,370 (“’370 patent”); 7,954,129 (“’129 patent”); 8,208,019 (“’019 patent”); and 8,610,772 (“’772 patent”) are ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Sensormatic Elecs., LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc., 484 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D. Del. 2020) (“Decision”). Be- cause we agree that the patents claim patent-ineligible subject matter, we affirm. BACKGROUND Sensormatic owns the ’534, ’370, ’129, ’019, and ’772 patents (collectively, the “asserted patents”), which gener- ally describe a wireless surveillance system and methods of operation. Claim 14 of the ’129 patent is representative of the claims before us. 14. A surveillance system for wireless communica- tion between components comprising: a base system including at least two wireless input capture devices (ICDs), the ICDs having at least one sensor and at least one input component for de- tecting and recording inputs, a processor, a memory, a transmitter/receiver, all constructed and configured in electronic connection; wherein the ICDs are operable for direct wireless cross-communication with each other without re- quiring interaction with a remote server computer for operation; and wherein the ICDs are operable for direct wireless communication with a remote viewing device oper- able by an authorized user. Case: 20-2320 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 07/14/2021 SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS, LLC v. WYZE LABS, INC. 3 ’129 patent col. 17 ll. 16–28. Sensormatic asserted the ’534, ’370, ’129, ’019, and ’772 patents against Wyze Labs, Inc. (“Wyze”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Sensor- matic later reduced the number of asserted claims to 25, asserting: ’534 claims 1, 2, 3, and 4; ’370 claims 1–7; ’129 claims 6–8, 10, and 11; ’019 claims 2–4, 7, 8, and 10; and ’772 claims 1, 12, and 13. See Joint Claim Construction Chart, Sensormatic Elecs., LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01543-CFC-SRF (D. Del. May 21, 2020), ECF No. 67. Wyze then moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that claim 14 of the ’129 patent is representative and that the …

Original document

Add comment

By

Recent Posts

Recent Comments