Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02065/USCOURTS-ca13-19-02065-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Digital Ally, Inc.
Appellant
Taser International, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DIGITAL ALLY, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2019-2065

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas in No. 2:16-cv-02032-CM, United States 

District Judge Carlos Murguia.

______________________

Decided: April 22, 2020

______________________

ADAM PRESCOTT SEITZ, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, 

KS, for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PAUL R.

HART, Greenwood Village, CO. 

 PAMELA BETH PETERSEN, Axon Enterprise, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

LAUREN ELIZABETH DOUVILLE, JOHN D. GARRETSON, Shook, 

Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO. 

 ______________________

Case: 19-2065 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 04/22/2020
2 DIGITAL ALLY, INC. v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Digital Ally, Inc. (“Digital”) appeals the final judgment 

of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granting summary judgment of non-infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 (the “’452 patent”). See Digital 

Ally, Inc. v. Taser Int’l, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02032-CM (D. Kan. 

June 17, 2019), amended by No. 2:16-cv-02032-CM (D. Kan. 

July 25, 2019) (“District Court Decision”). We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The ’452 patent is directed to a system, designed for use 

by law enforcement officers, which uses multiple recording 

devices to record events. See ’452 patent col. 1 ll. 7–16. 

Specifically, it describes “[a] multiple recording device 

management system including an intermediate multiple 

recording device managing apparatus, a vehicle recording 

device mounted in a police vehicle and synced to the managing apparatus, and a personal recording device carried 

by a police officer and wirelessly synced to the managing 

apparatus.” ’452 patent, Abstract. Independent claim 10 

recites:

A system for recording multiple viewpoints of an 

event, comprising:

a first recording device configured to be mounted 

on or configured to be carried by a law enforcement 

officer so as to record a first set of record data for 

the event;

a second recording device, distinct from the first recording device, located so as to record a second set 

of record data for the event, said first set of record 

data being distinct from the second set of record 

[data]; and

a recording device manager operable to:

Case: 19-2065 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 04/22/2020
DIGITAL ALLY, INC. v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. 3

receive a trigger signal,

said trigger signal being at least one of activation 

of a law enforcement vehicle’s siren, activation of 

said law enforcement vehicle’s signal lights, activation of said law enforcement vehicle’s spotlight, a 

vehicle crash event, and a vehicle speed, and 

broadcast, in response to receiving the trigger signal, at least one communication signal including 

correlation data to the first recording device and 

the second recording device instructing the first recording device to begin recording said first set of 

record data and instructing the second recording 

device to begin recording said second set of record 

data,

wherein the first recording device stores the correlation data as metadata for the first set of record 

data and the second recording device stores the correlation data as metadata for the second set of record data, such that the first set of record data and 

the second set of record data can be correlated back 

to the event,

wherein the first set of record data and the second 

set of record data are recorded beginning substantially simultaneously in response to the broadcast 

communication signal.

Id. col. 16 ll. 21–53. 

Digital brought an action against TASER International, Inc. (“TASER”)1 in the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas, alleging that TASER’s Axon Signal Units (“ASUs”), when used with certain cameras, 

1 TASER changed its name to Axon Enterprise, Inc., 

effective April 5, 2017.

Case: 19-2065 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 04/22/2020
4 DIGITAL ALLY, INC. v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

infringed claims 10, 14–16, and 20 of the ’452 patent.2 On 

June 17, 2019, the district court granted TASER’s motion 

for summary judgment of non-infringement, concluding 

that TASER’s ASUs do not broadcast “correlation data” as 

required by independent claim 10. See District Court Decision, slip op. at 6. The court explained that the parties had 

agreed that the term “correlation data,” as used in claim 

10, was “data, including but not limited to [a] unique serial 

number and time stamp, used to link together or otherwise 

associate record data.” Id. at 5 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). In the court’s view, TASER’s accused products do 

not broadcast “correlation data” because they are “not capable of being used to link together or otherwise associate 

[video or audio] data.” Id. at 6 (internal quotation marks 

omitted) (alteration in original). The court rejected Digital’s argument that TASER’s ASUs are capable of broadcasting “correlation data” because they can link a video 

recording to an event, explaining that the asserted claims 

require “video-to-video” correlation rather than “video-toevent” correlation. Id. at 6–7.

Digital then filed a timely appeal with this court. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012).

2 Digital also accused TASER of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,781,292, but subsequently withdrew its allegations of infringement related to that patent. See Digital 

Ally, Inc. v. Taser Int’l, Inc., No. 16-2032-CM, 2018 WL 

3472815, at *1 (D. Kan. July 19, 2018). Digital also advanced unfair competition and antitrust claims against 

TASER; this court recently affirmed the district court’s dismissal of those claims. See Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser Int’l, 

Inc., 720 F. App’x 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Case: 19-2065 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 04/22/2020
DIGITAL ALLY, INC. v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. 5

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Claim construction based on the intrinsic evidence is a 

question of law that this court reviews de novo. See, e.g., 

Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 

1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp., 783 F.3d 1262, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

Where, as here, “the parties do not dispute any relevant 

facts regarding the accused product . . . but disagree over 

possible claim interpretations, the question of literal infringement collapses into claim construction and is amenable to summary judgment.” Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. 

IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

B. “Correlation Data”

Resolution of the infringement dispute presented here 

turns on the proper construction of a single claim term: 

“correlation data.” The parties agree that independent 

claim 10 of the ’452 patent requires a “recording device 

manager” that is capable of “broadcast[ing] . . . at least one 

communication signal including correlation data to [a] first 

recording device and [a] second recording device.” ’452 patent col. 16 ll. 30–40 (emphasis added). They also 

acknowledge that, during claim construction proceedings, 

they agreed that the term “correlation data,” as used in 

claim 10, means “data, including but not limited to [a] 

unique serial number and time stamp, used to link together or otherwise associate record data.” District Court 

Decision, slip op. at 5; see A. 311, 1616.

The parties vigorously dispute, however, whether the 

claimed “correlation data” refers to data which links “record data” to other “record data,’’ i.e., which links one video 

to another video (“video-to-video correlation”) or instead 

which links a video to a recorded event (“video-to-event 

Case: 19-2065 Document: 40 Page: 5 Filed: 04/22/2020
6 DIGITAL ALLY, INC. v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

correlation”).3 TASER contends that both the language of 

claim 10, when read in its entirety, and the disclosure in 

the specification make clear that “correlation data” means 

data which links one video recording to another video recording. Digital, by contrast, argues that the district court 

misconstrued the parties’ stipulated construction and that 

“correlation data” need not be capable of linking one video 

recording to another video recording. In other words, according to Digital, claim 10 only mandates video-to-event 

correlation.

There are at least three reasons why TASER has the 

better argument. First, the specification strongly supports 

the district court’s conclusion that “correlation data” means 

data that links one video recording to another video recording. See District Court Decision, slip op. at 6–7. The specification explains that prior art recording device 

management systems were not able to “corroborate the recorded data by correlating data taken from distinct devices.” 

’452 patent col. 1 ll. 27–28 (emphasis added). In other 

words, prior art systems were not able to provide effective 

video-to-video correlation.

The claimed invention purportedly overcomes this 

problem through a system in which a “recording device 

managing apparatus” sends “time stamps to synced recording devices for corroborating recordings” from the recording devices. Id. col. 1 l. 66–col. 2 l. 4 (emphasis added). 

Claim 10 tracks this approach, describing a “recording device manager” which “broadcast[s] . . . correlation data” to 

two “distinct” recording devices, referred to as a “first recording device” and a “second recording device.” Id. col. 16 

ll. 23–40. Over and over again, the specification describes 

a recording device manager which sends data, such as a 

3 The parties also agree that the term “record data” 

in claim 10 refers to the “audio and video for an event.” 

A. 1609.

Case: 19-2065 Document: 40 Page: 6 Filed: 04/22/2020
DIGITAL ALLY, INC. v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. 7

time stamp or a serial number, to “correlate” or “match” 

video recordings from different recording devices. See, e.g., 

id. col. 6 ll. 45–51 (“[T]he unique serial number and time 

stamp allow [the] video recording software that manages 

the data recordings to link together or otherwise associate 

data recordings having the same serial number and time 

stamp. Because recorded data is captured by disparate devices, use of the unique serial number assists in associating 

together the recorded data from each device.” (emphases 

added)); Id. col. 6 ll. 51–57 (explaining that the data provided by the recording device manager to each of the recording devices allows a police officer to “correlate and 

corroborate” recordings from distinct recording devices 

(emphasis added)); Id. col. 7 ll. 15–21 (“The time stamp and 

serial number corresponding to the captured and recorded 

video and audio data recordings from the personal recording device can be matched with the concurrent time stamp 

corresponding to the captured and recorded video and audio data recordings from the vehicle recording device to 

link the recordings chronologically.” (emphasis added) (diagram numbering omitted)). Thus, because the specification repeatedly states that the data broadcast from the 

recording device manager is used to correlate video recordings from two distinct recording devices, the term “correlation data” in claim 10 is most reasonably interpreted to 

refer to data linking a video recorded on one device to a 

video recorded on a different device. See, e.g., Advanced 

Fiber Techs. (AFT) Tr. v. J & L Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 

1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A patent is a fully integrated 

written instrument; the claims must be read in view of the 

specification, of which they are a part.”); Netword, LLC v. 

Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The 

claims are directed to the invention that is described in the 

specification; they do not have meaning removed from the 

context from which they arose.”); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[The specification] is the single best guide to the meaning of a 

disputed term.”).

Case: 19-2065 Document: 40 Page: 7 Filed: 04/22/2020
8 DIGITAL ALLY, INC. v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Second, Digital’s proposed construction of the term 

“correlation data” renders claim language superfluous. 

See, e.g., Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 

885 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (refusing to adopt a claim construction 

which would render a claim limitation meaningless); Bicon, 

Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 

(explaining that “claims are interpreted with an eye toward 

giving effect to all terms in the claim”). In Digital’s view, 

the “correlation data” which is broadcast from the recording device manager to the recording devices, ’452 patent 

col. 16 ll. 37–40, serves only to link a video recording to a 

recorded event. See Appellant Br. 9. But the penultimate 

clause of claim 10 specifically requires the video recordings 

to “be correlated back to the [recorded] event.” ’452 patent 

col. 16 l. 49. There would be no need for the penultimate 

clause to require correlation back to the recorded event if, 

as Digital asserts, the “correlation data” initially sent by 

the recording device manager to the recording devices had 

already linked the video recordings back to the recorded 

event.

Finally, there is no merit to Digital’s assertion that the 

district court failed to properly consider or acknowledge its 

interpretation of the parties’ stipulated construction of the 

term “correlation data.” See Appellant Br. 6, 12. The district court expressly recognized Digital’s position that the 

parties’ stipulated claim construction required video-toevent correlation rather than video-to-video correlation. 

See District Court Decision, slip op. at 6. As the court correctly concluded, however, Digital’s position “ignore[d]” the 

plain meaning of the stipulated construction. Id.

In this regard, the parties, as noted previously, stipulated that the term “correlation data” in claim 10 meant 

“data, including but not limited to [a] unique serial number 

and time stamp, used to link together or otherwise associate

record data.” Id. at 5 (emphases added); see A. 311. Given 

that Digital acknowledges that the terms “record data” and 

“video” can be used “interchangeably,” Appellant Br. 8 n.3, 

Case: 19-2065 Document: 40 Page: 8 Filed: 04/22/2020
DIGITAL ALLY, INC. v. TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. 9

the plain meaning of the agreed-upon construction is that 

“correlation data” is data that can be used to “link together” 

or “associate” video recordings, i.e., video-to-video correlation. We reject, therefore, Digital’s unsupported assertion 

that the stipulated construction requires only that “correlation data” link a video recording with “something,” but 

“does not identify what that something is.” Id. at 20 (emphasis omitted).

C. Infringement

“Because there is no dispute that the accused correlation data [in TASER’s system] cannot be used to link together or otherwise associate video from separate accused 

cameras,” id. at 5, the district court correctly granted 

TASER’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. We have considered Digital’s remaining arguments 

but do not find them persuasive.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 19-2065 Document: 40 Page: 9 Filed: 04/22/2020