Opinion ID: 210204
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sensormatic Systems Using the SensorNet Protocols

Text: Elbex contends that the Sensormatic CCTV systems employing the SensorNet protocols infringe because the controller can receive alarm messages by way of a camera in the system and return a message, using the originating camera's address, instructing that camera to stop sending the alarm message. Mr. Elberbaum, the inventor of the '085 patent, Elbex's founder, and expert, submitted an affidavit describing how cameras in CCTV systems may include inputs to receive messages from alarms on doors and windows. According to Mr. Elberbaum, the alarm inputs connect the cameras to external alarm sensors and an alarm signal . . . is sent to the controller when a door is opened or when an intruder is attempting to break in through a window. Thus, Elbex's position is that the alarm signal includes camera address information and satisfies the first code signal limitation of claim 1. When the controller acknowledges receipt of the alarm message it uses a second code signal corresponding to the first code signal. The controller, according to Elbex, operates the camera by instructing the camera to stop sending the alarm message. Sensormatic contends that its cameras do not send a first code signal from the camera that is used by the controller to generate a second code signal. According to Sensormatic, to infringe claim 1 a Sensormatic CCTV camera must at a minimum send a `1st code signal' to the controller prior to receiving any communication through a `2nd code signal' from the controller. Sensormatic Br. at 37. This does not occur in Sensormatic's systems using the SensorNet protocol because another device must poll the cameras to request information from them. Moreover, according to Sensormatic, the camera acts as a server and the controller acts as a client. Thus, Sensormatic contends that it does not infringe claim 1 of the '085 patent. We agree with the district court that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to the Sensormatic CCTV systems using the SensorNet protocols and conclude that Sensormatic was entitled to a judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law. The documents describing the use of the SensorNet protocol state that the camera acts as a server and the controller acts as a client. In this configuration, the client must have the correct address information to properly send a message, whereas the server can return the message based on the information received from the client. Thus, in the terms used by the '085 patent, it would be the camera that would receive an address or first code signal from the controller and would generate a response to the controller based on the first code signal. Elbex's attempts to show that the client/server relationship between the camera and the controller are merely exemplary fail because the testimony Elbex relies on only refers to acknowledgements sent when contacting settings change, i.e., when a switch is reset, and do not pertain to using control signals to operat[e] said television camera in accordance with said control signals when said 2nd signals coincide with a code allotted to said television camera. '085 patent, col.8 ll.11-14. Therefore, we agree with the district court that summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to the Sensormatic CCTV systems using the SensorNet protocols was appropriate.