IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Colo.: Security system correlation engine patents survive Alice challenge, for now, (Jun 7, 2023)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Factual questions needed to be resolved regarding whether the asserted patents claimed an inventive concept.

A seller of security systems was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings that three security and surveillance system patents against it by SecureNet Solutions were invalid for being directed at an abstract idea, the federal district court in Denver has held. Even assuming that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of collecting data from sensors, analyzing that data, and providing an alert in response to the result of the analysis, there were questions of fact about whether the claimed invention included an inventive concept (SecureNet Solutions Group, LLC v. Arrow Electronics, Inc., June 5, 2023, Mix, K.).

SecureNet Solutions Group, LLC (SecureNet) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 9,344,616 (the ’616 patent), 10,862,744 (the ’744 patent), and 11,323,314 (the ’314 patent), each of which claimed “internet of things” and correlation engine related functions in security systems. The systems worked by integrating cameras, sensor networks, and other sources with a “correlation engine” that connected the various data points and could be set to follow various rules for generating alerts.

SecureNet brought suit for infringement against Arrow Electronics, Inc. (Arrow), alleging that various Arrow products infringed the three asserted patents. Arrow moved for judgment on the pleadings that the asserted patents were invalid for being directed at an abstract idea. The court applied the two-step Alice test.

Abstract idea. Arrow argued that the patents were directed to the abstract idea of collecting data from sensors, analyzing that data, and providing an alert in response to the result of the analysis. SecureNet argued that its patents claimed technological improvements in the field of computerized security systems.

Arrow relied heavily on May 2020 decision by another Colorado district court, finding that related patents were directed to an abstract idea under step one of the Alice framework. Senstar Corp. SecureNet Solutions Group, LLC v. Senstar Corp., No. 19-cv-02913-NRN, 2020 WL 2557625 (D. Colo. May 20, 2020). Specifically, the Senstar court found the patent claims were directed to (1) collecting data from sensors, (2) storing the data in storage devices, (3) analyzing the data, and (4) providing an output, or an "alert," to be acted upon. However, the Senstar court could not determine whether the patents contained an inventive concept without further development of the record.

For purposes of this motion, the present court assumed without deciding that the claims of the asserted patent were likewise directed to an abstract idea. The court proceeded to step two of the Alice test regarding whether the claims included an inventive concept.

Inventive concept. To show lack of an inventive concept, Arrow relied heavily on declarations of SecureNet’s expert which SecureNet had attached to its complaint. The court determined that it would not consider the expert declaration because it was not the sort of “written instrument” contemplated for consideration under Rule 10(c), but rather factual evidence not properly before the court at this stage.

Absent the declarations, the court found Arrow had no evidence to put forward on whether the asserted patents claimed material that was well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art at the time of the application. The court was unable to make such a factual finding based on the record currently before it.

The court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Case is No. 22-cv-01254-KLM.

Attorneys: Averil K. Andrews (Allen Vellone Wolf Helfrich & Factor PC) for SecureNet Solutions Group, LLC. Jeffrey Randall Roeser (Holland & Hart LLP) for Arrow Electronics, Inc.

Companies: SecureNet Solutions Group, LLC; Arrow Electronics, Inc.

Cases: Patent ColoradoNews