Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-71113.,01-71113. |
| Citation | 318 F.Supp.2d 476 |
| Parties | CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Glenn E. Forbis, R. Terrance Rader, Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiff.
William L. Anthony, Jr., Any Landers, Monte M.F. Cooper, Rachel D. Albright, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA, Hershcel P. Fink, Cynthia G. Thomas Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
This is a patent case. Plaintiff ChriMar Systems, Inc. (Chrimar), holder of U.S. Patent Number 5,406,260 (the '260 patent) covering a Network Security System for Detecting Removal of Electronic Equipment, is suing Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) for infringement in the making, etc., of devices which fall within the scope of one or more claims of the '260 patent. Chrimar claims infringement of claims 1 to 6, 8 to 12, and 14 to 19 of the '260 patent. At this time the sole claim in issue is representative claim 1; the remaining claims have been bifurcated and proceedings stayed.1 The Court previously conducted a Markman proceeding to construe six of the limitations of claim 1.
Before the Court are three motions: (1) Cisco's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of claim 1, (2) Chrimar's motion for summary judgment of infringement, and (3) Cisco's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. The motions were referred to a Special Master, who issued a report recommending that the Court grant both of Cisco's motions and deny Chrimar's motion.
For the reasons that follow, Cisco's motions are GRANTED and Chrimar's motion is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED as to claim 1. Further proceedings are required relating to the remaining bifurcated claims. Accordingly, the Deputy Clerk is directed to schedule a conference with the parties to that end.
The ABSTRACT of the '260 patent describes the invention:
A system and method are provided for monitoring the connection of electronic equipment, such as remote computer workstations, to a network via a communication link and detecting the disconnection of such equipment from the network. The system includes current loops internally coupled to protected pieces of equipment so that each piece of associated equipment has an associated current loop. A low current power signal is provided to each of the current loops. A sensor monitors the current flow through each current loop to detect removal of the equipment from the network. Removal of a piece of hardware breaks the current flow through the associated current loop which in turn may activate an alarm. This invention is particularly adapted to be used with an existing 10BaseT communication link or equivalent thereof, employing existing wiring to form the current loops.
Figure 1 illustrates the invention generally:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION describes the problem solved by the invention and the advance in the art as follows:
Today, computer network systems are frequently employed to provide efficient computing capabilities throughout a large work area. Existing computer network systems generally include a number of remotely located work stations coupled via a data communication link to a central processing center. For instance, many educational institutions such as universities commonly provide a large number of individual work stations at different locations throughout the university campus so as to allow easy computing access to the computer network system. However, the wide dissemination of such equipment at remote locations has made the equipment an accessible target for computer thieves.
Accordingly, a number of methods have been developed for guarding against the unauthorized removal of electronic equipment....
More recent methods of theft protection have included the sensing of a current loop coupled to the protected equipment. One such method is discussed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,654,640 issued to Carll et al which discloses a theft alarm system for use with a digital signal PBX telephone system. This method includes a plurality of electronic tethers which are connected to individual pieces of protected equipment by way of connectors which in turn are bonded to the surface of the protected equipment. Each tether includes a pair of conductors which are connected together to form a closed current loop via a series resistor and conductive foil which is adhesively bonded to the outside of the equipment. However, this method requires the addition of an externally mounted current loop, and it is conceivable that the current loop may be carefully removed without any detection.
It is therefore desirable to provide for an enhanced network security system which detects unauthorized removal of remotely located pieces of hardware from a network. More particularly, it is desirable to provide for such a security system which feasibly employs separate current loops provided through an existing data communication link to monitor the presence of remotely located computer equipment. In addition, it is desirable to provide for a security network system which may be easily and inexpensively implemented in an existing network system and may not be easily physically removed or detached from tile system without detection.
Claim 1 of the '260 patent (broken down into appropriate clauses) reads:
1. A security system for detecting disconnection of electronic equipment from a network, said security system comprising:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Automotive Technologies v. Siemens Vdo Automotive
...must submit such clear and convincing evidence of invalidity so that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.'" Chrimar Sys. v. Cisco Sys., 318 F.Supp.2d 476, 491 (E.D.Mich.2004) (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., 251 F.3d 955, 962 (Fed.Cir. 2001)); see also Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM......
-
Automotive Techs. Intern. v. Bmw of North America
...must submit such clear and convincing evidence of invalidity so that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.'" Chrimar Sys., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 476, 491 (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., 251 F.3d 955, 962 (Fed.Cir.2001)); see also Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc......
-
Auto. Technologies Int'l Inc. v. Delphi Corp..
...such clear and convincing evidence of invalidity so that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.’ ” Chrimar Sys., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 476, 491 (E.D.Mich.2004) (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., 251 F.3d 955, 962 (Fed.Cir.2001)); see also Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM......
-
Henrob Ltd v. Bllhoff Systemtechnick GmbH & Co.
...must submit such clear and convincing evidence of invalidity so that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.'" Chrimar Sys., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 476, 491 (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., 251 F.3d 955, 962 (Fed.Cir.2001)); see also Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc......