Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Main Menu

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC vs Brickell Financial Centre, LLC

Court:
Southern District of Florida
Subject Matter:
Patent
Procedural Posture:
Scheduling Conference
  • Hawk Technology Systems, LLC vs Brickell Financial Centre, LLC
    Hawk Technology Systems, LLC vs Brickell Financial Centre, LLC
    Hawk Technology Systems, LLC vs Brickell Financial Centre, LLC, Case Number 1:13-cv-24005-PAS, Scheduling Conference, 2/19/2014, 10:00 A.M. (EST), Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. United States Courthouse -- Florida Southern District Court, Miami, FL, Judge Patricia A. Seitz presiding.

    Hawk Technology Systems, LLC vs Brickell Financial Centre, LLC, Case Number 1:13-cv-24005-PAS, Scheduling Conference, 2/19...

Case Summary: 13-cv-24005

Plaintiff Hawk Technology Systems, LLC, brought this action against Defendant Brickell Financial Centre, LLC, alleging patent infringement. The patent at issue, owned by Plaintiff, is for a computer-based video storage and TV display system for video security and other monitoring purposes. This system can record from several cameras and save multiple videos simultaneously on a hard drive. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has infringed on its patent by using a security system in its office, which is substantially identical to the one invented by Plaintiff.

This proceeding is the Scheduling Conference held on February 19, 2014. In the video, the attorneys for both parties met with the presiding judge to discuss the case, including the facts, the desired result for each party, and suggestions moving forward. Plaintiff explained the technical aspects of the patent to the Court. Defendant requested more time to research the patent and the asserted claims, and may agree to settle if research finds that further continuation of this lawsuit would lead nowhere.  The Court gave both parties up to May 15, 2014 to do more research, condense their arguments into more specific claims, and for Plaintiff to provide Defendant with a settlement demand.   

Case Highlights

  • Initial Complaint filed 11/5/2013 (Doc #1)
  • Amended Complaint filed 11/22/2013 (Doc # 8)
  • Answer to Amended Complaint filed 12/30/2014 (Doc # 13)

Case-related documents, including those referenced above, are available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. For more information, visit Pacer.gov.