This case was last updated from PACER on 09/03/2021 at 05:48:48 (UTC).

Verkada, Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al

Case Summary

On September 2, 2021, Verkada, Inc. (“Verkada” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Sean Sang-Chul Pak of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Motorola Solutions, Inc., Avigilon Corporation, Avigilon Fortress Corporation, Avigilon Patent Holding 1 Corporation, and Avigilon Technologies Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the United States Patents owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California.

 

This action is brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201- 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., for a declaratory judgment of alleged non-infringement of patents Defendants have asserted against Verkada in proceedings before the United States International Trade Commission (“USITC”). Verkada seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of United States Patent No. 7,868,912 (the “’912 Patent”), United States Patent No. 8,508,607 (the “’607 Patent”), and United States Patent No. 10,726,312 (the “’312 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).

 

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that, “In the USITC Complaint, Defendants allege that Verkada’s accused security camera products and software infringe the ’912 Patent, including (a) the Verkada Dome Series, such as the CD31, CD41, CD51, and CD61 products in all configurations; (b) the Verkada Mini Series, such as the CM41, CM41-E, and CM61 products in all configurations; (c) the Verkada Fisheye Series, such as the CF81-E product in all configurations; (d) the Verkada Bullet Series, such as the CB51-E, CB61-E, CB51-TE, and CB61-TE products in all configurations; and (e) the Verkada D-Series, such as the D30, D40, D50, and D80 products in all configurations.”

 

The plaintiff also alleged that, “Verkada does not directly or indirectly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, all of the claim limitations of any claim of the ’912 Patent. Additionally, Verkada’s accused security camera products and software have not infringed and do not infringe any claim of the ’912 Patent, including (a) the Verkada Dome Series, such as the CD31, CD41, CD51, and CD61 products in all configurations; (b) the Verkada Mini Series, such as the CM41, CM41-E, and CM61 products in all configurations; (c) the Verkada Fisheye Series, such as the CF81-E product in all configurations; (d) the Verkada Bullet Series, such as the CB51-E, CB61-E, CB51-TE, and CB61- TE products in all configurations; and (e) the Verkada D-Series, such as the D30, D40, D50, and D80 products in all configurations.”

 

Further, the plaintiff alleged that, “Verkada therefore respectfully requests that this Court declare that neither Verkada nor Verkada’s accused security camera products and software directly or indirectly infringe, whether literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’912 Patent.”

 

There are three claims for relief laid down by the plaintiff, one for non-infringement of each of the Asserted Patents.

 

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff has requested the court to pass a judgment that Verkada has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The plaintiff also requests the court find this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award Verkada its attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-06858

  • Filing Date:

    09/02/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Verkada, Inc.

Defendants

Motorola Solutions, Inc.

Avigilon Corporation

Avigilon Fortress Corporation

Avigilon Patent Holding 1 Corporation

Avigilon Technologies Corporation

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Sean Sang-Chul Pak

Attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

50 California, Floor 22

San Francisco, CA 94111

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16353203.). Filed byVerkada, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Pak, Sean) (Filed on 9/2/2021) (Entered: 09/02/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16353203.). Filed byVerkada, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Pak, Sean) (Filed on 9/2/2021) (Entered: 09/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Avigilon Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases where Motorola Solutions Inc is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Sean Sang-Chul Pak