Cam Guard Systems Inc v. Smart Systems Technologies Inc, No. 2:2006cv06949 - Document 122 (C.D. Cal. 2008)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, in favor of Cam Guard Systems Inc against Smart Systems Technologies Inc Related to: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held 94 , Jury Trial - Completed, 107 : The issues having been duly tried and the jury having rendered its verdict, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES: 1. That U.S. Patent Nos. 7,059,783; 7,111,997; and 7,267,496, each owned by Cam Guard, are valid and enforceable. 2. That SST's surveillance towe rs with the recorder in the secure base enclosure, SST's modified surveillance tower with the recorder in an enclosure on the pole, and SST's modified surveillance tower with the recorder in a supervisor's trailer/unit infringe Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-17 and 19-26 of the '783 patent. 3. That SST's surveillance towers with the recorder in the secure base enclosure infringe Claims 1-5, 8, 13 and 14 of the '997 patent. 4. That SST's modified surveillance tower with t he recorder in an enclosure on the pole, and SST's modified surveillance tower with the recorder in a supervisor's trailer/unit infringe Claims 1 and 3-5 of the '496 patent. 5. That Cam Guard shall recover from SST damages in the amoun t of $183,000; 6. That Cam Guard shall recover its costs, prejudgment and postjudgment interest and Cam Guard is to submit a brief on the amount of interest to be added to the damages award no later than October 20, 2008; and 7. That SST, togeth er with its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation with them having actual notice of this Order are hereby permanently enjoined from making, using, offering to sell, rent, or lease, or s elling, renting, or leasing within the United States, its territories and possessions, or by importing into the United States, its territories and possessions, its current surveillance towers or surveillance towers that meet all of the limitations of one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,267,496, U.S. Patent No. 7,059,783, and U.S. Patent No. 7,111,997 during the unexpired terms of those patents, without authorization or license from Cam Guard. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Court expressly directs the Clerk to enter this Final Judgment as set forth above. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (bm)

Download PDF
Cam Guard Systems Inc v. Smart Systems Technologies Inc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Doc. 122 Steven J. Nataupsky (SBN 155913) snataupsky@kmob.com Joseph S. Cianfrani (SBN 196186) jcianfrani@kmob.com Curtis R. Huffmire (SBN 225069) chuffmire@kmob.com KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2040 Main Street Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 760-0404 Facsimile: (949) 760-9502 Attorneys for Plaintiff CAM GUARD SYSTEMS, INC. E-FILED 11-10-08 JS-6 9 10 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 WESTERN DIVISION 14 15 CAM GUARD SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff, v. SMART SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. SACV07-1051 PSG (SSx) (consolidated with CV 06-6949 PSG (SSx)) [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT Trial: September 4, 2008 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 790 Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On June 3, 2008, this Court found in favor of Cam Guard Systems, Inc. 2 (“Cam Guard”), finding that Smart Systems Technologies, Inc. (“SST”) literally 3 infringed Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-26 of U.S. Patent No. 7,059,783 (“the 4 ‘783 Patent”), Claims 1-5, 8, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,111,997 (“the ‘997 5 Patent”), and Claims 1 and 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,267,496 (“the ‘496 Patent”). 6 Additionally, this Court found as a matter of law that the ‘783, ‘997, and ‘496 7 Patents are valid and enforceable. 8 On September 4, 2008, a jury trial on the remaining issues of willfulness 9 and damages concerning the ‘783, ‘997, and ‘496 Patents came before this 10 Court. On September 16, 2008, the jury rendered its verdict awarding damages 11 to Cam Guard in the amount of $183,000, and finding that SST had not willfully 12 infringed the ‘783, ‘997, and ‘496 Patents. 13 The issues having been duly tried and the jury having rendered its verdict, 14 THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES: 15 1. That U.S. Patent Nos. 7,059,783; 7,111,997; and 7,267,496, each owned by Cam Guard, are valid and enforceable. 16 2. 17 That SST’s surveillance towers with the recorder in the secure base 18 enclosure, SST’s modified surveillance tower with the recorder in 19 an enclosure on the pole, and SST’s modified surveillance tower 20 with the recorder in a supervisor’s trailer/unit infringe Claims 1-7, 21 9-14, 16-17 and 19-26 of the ‘783 patent. 3. 22 That SST’s surveillance towers with the recorder in the secure base enclosure infringe Claims 1-5, 8, 13 and 14 of the ‘997 patent. 23 4. 24 That SST’s modified surveillance tower with the recorder in an 25 enclosure on the pole, and SST’s modified surveillance tower with 26 the recorder in a supervisor’s trailer/unit infringe Claims 1 and 3-5 27 of the ‘496 patent. 28 /// -1- 5. 1 That Cam Guard shall recover from SST damages in the amount of $183,000; 2 6. 3 That Cam Guard shall recover its costs, prejudgment and post- 4 judgment interest and Cam Guard is to submit a brief on the 5 amount of interest to be added to the damages award no later than 6 October 20, 2008; and 7. 7 That SST, together with its officers, agents, servants, employees 8 and attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation 9 with them having actual notice of this Order are hereby 10 permanently enjoined from making, using, offering to sell, rent, or 11 lease, or selling, renting, or leasing within the United States, its 12 territories and possessions, or by importing into the United States, 13 its territories and possessions, its current surveillance towers or 14 surveillance towers that meet all of the limitations of one or more 15 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,267,496, U.S. Patent No. 7,059,783, 16 and U.S. Patent No. 7,111,997 during the unexpired terms of those 17 patents, without authorization or license from Cam Guard. 18 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Court expressly 19 20 directs the Clerk to enter this Final Judgment as set forth above. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 11/10/08_____________________ ___________________________ THE HON. PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 5996201 27 28 -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.