MONTRÉAL — A federal judge has exonerated Genetec of patent infringement in a lawsuit filed in 202o in Delaware by Sensormatic and awarded the unified security, public safety, operations and business intelligence solutions provider with reimbursement of the bulk of its legal fees in the case.
Sensormatic Electronics, LLC, a subsidiary of Tyco International, which is now merged with Johnson Controls, filed suit against Genetec in Delaware in June 2020, which alleged infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,307,652, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Object Tracking and Detection,” and U.S. Patent No. 9,463,954, entitled “Access Control System for Override Elevator Control, and Method Therefor.”
On Jan. 3, 2023, the court invalidated the ‘652 patent following Genetec’s motion for summary judgment. On Feb. 15, 2023, Sensormatic unilaterally dismissed the remaining infringement claims regarding the ‘954 patent with prejudice, leading to the judge issuing a final judgment exculpating Genetec, according to the announcement.
Following the final judgment in its favor, Genetec moved to have its attorney fees awarded, which required the judge to find the case “exceptional” under U.S. patent laws. On March 27, 2024, the court found the case exceptional and found Genetec entitled to a substantial portion of its attorney fees.
The court also ordered that the parties meet to reach an agreement on the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded, following which Genetec and Sensormatic entered into an agreement regarding the amount to be paid to Genetec, ending the litigation and terminating appeals, according to the announcement.
This concludes all outstanding litigation between Sensormatic and Genetec, the announcement says.
Inside the Sensormatic-Genetic Patent Infringement Case
“We have stated in the past that Genetec considers this a simple case of friendly fire, and this remains true,” says Pierre Racz, president of Genetec Inc., in the company announcement. “That said, we take patent infringement accusations very seriously, even when they come from a subsidiary of a partner.
“Genetec has a forward-facing approach to development. We do not copy our peers but look to the future to create technology that doesn’t exist yet. The successful conclusion of this litigation is a vindication of our innovative approach to product development,” he says.
Efforts to reach officials from Sensormatic for comment were unsuccessful.
In 2020, Genetec announced the favorable conclusion of a lawsuit brought by a non-practicing entity (NPE) which ended with the NPE paying Genetec in a settlement.
“Lawsuits like these can be seen as an accusation of plagiarism so it is important that we set the record straight,” says Jean-Yves Pikulik, director of intellectual property at Genetec Inc., in the company announcement.
“Genetec has a policy of vigorously defending itself against any patent case we consider unjustified and to seek attorney fees awards in all such cases,” he says. “This outcome demonstrates to potential patent aggressors how seriously we take these accusations of infringement.”
Genetec was represented by Fish & Richardson P.C. in this matter. Sensormatic was represented by Foley & Lardner LLP.
