Power-over-Ethernet Campaign Snags Polycom and USA Vision Systems Amid Various Federal Circuit Appeals
Recent setbacks before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have not dissuaded ChriMar Systems, Inc. and ChriMar Holding Company, LLC (collectively, “ChriMar”) from continuing to file new lawsuits. Last week, the affiliated NPEs sued Polycom (6:19-cv-00015) in the Western District of Texas and USA Vision Systems (3:19-cv-00114) in the Northern District of Texas. Among the four patents asserted across these new complaints (all four against USA Vision; two, against Polycom) are three patents that were successfully challenged in inter partes reviews (IPRs), the invalidations arising from which have been appealed to the Federal Circuit. As it has throughout this campaign, ChriMar accuses the defendants of infringement through the provision of “Power over Ethernet powered devices and/or power sourcing equipment”, both complaints targeting “powered devices” (IP phones for Polycom and IP cameras for USA Vision Systems) but only the USA Vision Systems complaint targeting “power sourcing equipment” (“switches, midspans/injectors, and network video recorders”).
Subscription Required
This content requires a subscription to view
- Over 7,000 news articles covering new patent cases, key policy decisions, and USPTO assignments
- Advanced custom alerts for campaigns and entities
- Proprietary litigation timelines
- Full access to Federal Circuit, PTAB, and ITC dockets
- Judge, venue, and law firm analytics
Market Sector
Related News
Details
Key Parties
Campaigns
Litigations
- Chrimar Systems, Inc. v Garrettcom, Inc., et al
- Chrimar Systems, Inc. v Garrettcom, Inc., et al
- ChriMar Systems Inc v. KTI Network, Inc. et al
- Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Waters Network Systems, LLC
- Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Danpex Corporation
- ChriMar Systems Inc. et al v. Cisco Systems Inc. et al
- ChriMar Systems Inc. et al v. Cisco Systems Inc. et al
- Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al
- Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. Grandstream Networks, Inc.
- Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. Aastra Technologies Limited et al