Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Digital Ally, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Kansas

June 17, 2019

DIGITAL ALLY, INC., Plaintiff
v.
TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.

         FILE UNDER SEAL[1]

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CARLOS MURGUIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Digital Ally, Inc. filed this patent infringement case in 2016, originally alleging that technology used with body-worn camera products sold by defendant Taser International, Inc., infringes plaintiff's patent, U.S. Patent No. 8, 781, 292 (“the ‘292 patent”). Highly generalized and summarized, plaintiff's product is a recording system for police departments to record traffic stops from two or more different cameras at the same time, but from different vantage points. When there is a “trigger” like a police vehicle siren, lights, spotlight, crash event, or a certain vehicle speed, two or more recording devices will be activated-for example, a car camera and a body cam. All of this happens automatically, so the officer does not have to remember to manually activate his body cam or other recording device. The recording devices each independently record the event. Plaintiff claims that defendant's technology, when used with certain cameras, infringes plaintiff's patent.

         Plaintiff later amended its complaint to add another claim for patent infringement with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9, 253, 452 (“the ‘452 patent”). Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the ‘292 petition infringement claim. Now only the ‘452 patent claims remain. Specifically, Claims 10, 14-16, and 20 of the ‘452 patent remain for review. Claim 10 is an independent claim and the others are dependent on Claim 10.

         The case is before the court on a number of motions. But one argument in one motion disposes of the entire case, so the court addresses that argument below and denies all other arguments and motions as moot. That argument is found in defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 306), and it relates to the term “correlation data.” Specifically, defendant argues that it does not infringe plaintiff's ‘452 patent because defendant's Axon Signal Unit (“ASU”) does not broadcast “correlation data, ” as required by Claim 10 of the patent.

         I. Factual Background

         The relevant, material, uncontroverted facts are as follows.

A. Claim 10 of the ‘452 Patent
Claim 10 of the ‘452 patent reads:
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:
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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.