Threats Of Infringement Muzzled By Lack Of Evidence

Posted on | June 30, 2008 | 1 Comment

2008-1442 Unitronics v. Gharb
D/DC 06-cv-027
Judge Rosemary Collyer

Patentee/DJ defendant Samy Gharb appeals from the orders of Judge Rosemary Collyer finding that Unitronics does not infringe his 6,552,654 patent and from an injunction barring him from threatening Unitronic’s customers with lawsuits.

Samy Gharb is a resident of Zürich and represented himself in the DJ proceedings.  He sent numerous correspondence and communications to Unitronics and its customers alleging infringement of his patent, generally directed to a security system using a digital recording device, several programmable logic controllers, and a GSM mobile phone.  Unitronics filed a DJ action.  Despite leniency and latitude from the bench, Gharb’s problems–litigating in a foreign language and a foreign court, and not understanding U.S. patent law, the court system, or the need for proof of infringement–were too much to overcome.

Claim 1 of the ‘654 states:

1. A security system for monitoring objects, comprising:

a digital recording device having at least one emergency message; and

a mobile telephone having at least one preselected emergency number;

a first Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) controller for initialing monitoring;

a second PLC controller for repeating an alarm signal; and

third, fourth, and fifth PLC controllers for activating a mobile telephone and a digital recording device;

at least one sensor for generating an alarm state connected to the first PLC controller;

a main relay for controlling the first PLC controller and which can be operated by a remote control;

a computer having mobile lines connectable to the five PLC controllers for programming the five PLC controllers; and

a data set for transmission to the mobile telephone including alarm information;

wherein
the second PLC controller repeats the alarm signal if the line dialed
by the mobile telephone in case of an alarm, is busy; and

wherein
each time the second PLC controller repeats the alarm signal, the
third, fourth and fifth PLC controllers activate the mobile telephone
and the digital recording device.

According to the court, the undisputed facts show that Unitronics makes and sells generic PLCs that can connected to "a landline (wired) modem, a cable modem, or a wireless modem (including but not limited to GSM, CDMA, TDMA, iDEN, NAMPS, Wi-Fi or any Radio-Frequency modem)."  Unitronics does not manufacture or sell security systems, and its PLCs can be used for a wide variety of admittedly non-infringing activities.

Accordingly, the court found that Unitronics did not infringe directly or indirectly, and granted it summary judgment.

Despite the ruling, Gharb continued to press his claim that Unitronic’s and others infringed, apparently under the mistaken belief that selling PLCs that could be used to infringe was enough.  The court subsequently granted Unitronic’s motion for a permanent injunction prohibiting Gharb from filing suit or communicating threats of infringement against Unitronics and its customers regarding use of PLCs.

The court did deny Unitronic’s request for attorney’s fees, noting Gharb’s apparent lack of resources as well as the fact that it was Unitronic’s that filed the action, not Gharb.

More reading:

Summary Judgment Order

Permanent Injunction

Counsel:
Unitronics: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, DC (Glenn Perry) and Smith, Gambrell & Russell, Atlanta (Brendan E. Squire, Dale Lischer, Deborah A. Heineman, Todd Douglas Williams).

Samy Gharb: pro se

Comments